Predictions on the Iraq situation...

[dsm]

Not that I believe all of this is going to happen, but this seems to be what is shaping up:


Bush (et.al.) continue lobbying the UN for a resolution, but ultimately fail to get a majority in the Security Council.
Bush reiterates the March 17th deadline regardless of backing by the UN.
Iraq continues its public disarming, but the issue of what Iraq is hiding will continue to plague the discussion.
The CIA/FBI fail to rollup al Quaida operatives associated with the big names recently captured in time for the March 17th deadline.
Bush begins the war in Iraq and turns General Tommy Franks loose.
Al Quaida implements multiple simultaneous attacks against US interests worldwide.
The Palestinians begin a massive attack against Israel from Lebanon and the Gaza territories.
A bomb takes out one of Saddam's hiding places with him in it leading to Iraq's surrender.
Iran, Turkey, and the Kurds have a fallout with each other and begin jockeying for position in a post-war Iraq.
North Korea tests a nuclear missile in the Pacific raising tensions amongst the Eastern nations.
No significant "smoking gun" is found in Iraq leading to big questions about the validity of the war.
The Arab states take a dim view on the war and retaliate by raising oil prices even more than what the war does.
Stock exchanges worldwide crash over fears of the results of the war and terrorism and the North Korean problem.
Worldwide depression ensues which leads to further tensions and wars around the world.


All right, so it's the nightmare scenario, but are we all that far from this scenario? :eek:

[Badger]

I got a twist for you.

Saddam blinks. On March 16, he unleashes some WMD on a troop concentration as a pre-emptive strike, hoping to make the US back down.

I don't really think it's likely. He wouldn't be that stupid, as he's winning the media war at the moment.

And North Korea gets a slap to the back of the head from China, sits back down and shuts up.

[Hypocolius]

I think the least likely are 6 and 7. Al Qaeda are probably in no state to co-ordinate anything, and the Palestinians can't do anything massive. As for 8, I think most of Iraq will already have surrendered by the time Saddam gets it.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Hypocolius
I think the least likely are 6 and 7. Al Qaeda are probably in no state to co-ordinate anything, and the Palestinians can't do anything massive. As for 8, I think most of Iraq will already have surrendered by the time Saddam gets it.

Well, as to 7, I think it was CNN that was interviewing Palestinians on the Lebanon border who were saying that they were waiting for the beginning of the Iraq war to launch an attack on Israel. CNN was also reporting how the Palestinians may have thousands of missiles in southern Lebanon ready for such an attack and how Israel is rather concerned about the possibility.

As to 6, information is beginning to come in from the Mohammed arrest to suggest that there were many things being planned. It remains to be seen whether the FBI/CIA can roll it up before anything is implemented. My bet is that the beginning of the war will be the signal to any al Quaida terrorists to do whatever they are going to do.

As to 8, that was something I threw in to fit with 11, 12, 13, and 14. However, Saddam has said that he will go down in Baghdad before being taken alive. So, either he gets the "honorable" ( ;) ) death in battle or a bullet in the brain (by his or someone else's hand).

Oh, and it looks like I left out the potential problems that will come out of the Philippines.

[tedly]

Last Monday I listened to Mr Dyer at the local U. His prediction was for war in 14 days. That's on the 17th.
He pointed out that Hussein will be holed up in a bunker in Bagdhad and the Republican Guards are not going to let the population leave. That means that the invading armies are going to fight an urban battle in a city of 5M, something no-one has been silly enough to do for over 50 years. Cities chew up armies. It's no wonder the Army leadership is not keen on this battle. He predicted that US casualties could easily hit the thousands. He thought the army might go full bore and take the casualties quickly so the battle would end before public sentiment stops the war.
There aren't any neat technological solutions, either. House to house fighting means that all the lovely stand-off weapons are useless, and there are no conventional weapons that can penetrate the bunkers in B'dad.
Given that 20th century wars had a ratio of 20 civilian casualties for every military one this isn't going to be anywhere as neat as your predictions.

[dsm]

If Saddam holes up in Baghdad with the Republican Guard, is there a reason that the US military has to go in after him?

[tedly]

No. Not if you can achieve regime change while the Republican Guard holds Baghdad.

[dsm]

Or, at least, effective regime change until Saddam decides to come out.

[Segnosaur]

#4 - If Iraq doesn't have any links to Al Quaeda, why should it matter if they get all the information on them? (Just wondering)

#6&7 - Al Quaeda and the Palestinians don't need much of an excuse to launch an attack. They've been trying regularly for a while. They may blame things on the Iraq invasion, but it really won't matter much. (Besides, As others have mentioned, al Quaeda has lost a good part of their infrastructure lately.)

#10 - What does the North Korea situation have to do with the U.S.? They may be using Iraq as a distraction, but they'd still be doing their tests regardless.

#11 - What do you base this on? I can't say for sure, but it sounds more like wishful thinking on the anti-war side. They had lots of WMD before the latest round of inspections, and if they really did destroy them, where is the proof? If they destroyed them, Saddam could have avoided this whole mess by just showing the proof.

#12 - Some Arab states may not like Iraq getting invaded. But, the fallout may be minimal for a number of reasons:
- Not all Arab states are strongly opposed to U.S. action. Kuwait is probably fairly neutral, and Qatar will probably even let the U.S. use bases there for launcing attacks.
- Iraqi oil would be on the market, which would counteract their desire to raise prices
- It is not in their best interest to raise prices anyways, since a sharp rise in prices may encourage the western world to reduce their overall consumption
- They man not 'like' what the U.S. does, but they will likely respect us more, since we will show we are willing to carry out our threats.
- It may also be possible for there to be a 'domino' effect. If the U.S. turns Iraq into a democracy, then it may give Iraq incentive to do the same thing

#13 and 14 - Assume that terrorism will actually increase. Again, 'wishful' thinking on the anti-war side. (Not that I expect many to really want that.) But, a democratic Iraq would be less likely to support terrorism itself, and having a 'free' country in the middle east might encourage other Arab nations to 'smarten up'. It may also encourage them to be a little more careful, with the knowledge that the U.S. is willing to back up their words with actions.

[Troll]

Well since we're just making predictions let me channel my spirit guide for a moment. Hold on, I sense him coming through. are you there Eugene?

Ah he's here now. Eugene says that the following are the most likely scenarios in Iraq:

1) We take Hussein out in a targeted bombing of a non-civilian target

2) He holds up in Baghdad and we surround the city and hold it under seige.

3) If 2 happens after a period of no more than 3 weeks, Iraquis will come to the gates of the city and hand over Hussein's corpse to American Marines.

4) No matter what happens, fewer Iraquis citizens will die this year than would have if Hussein had remained in charge

[crocodile deathroll]

France does not veto as it bribed in the back rooms to back down with a trade deal
America and its allies invade Iraq with UN support.
Baghdad is quickly surrounded but Saddam refuses to back down.
Dirty urban guerilla warfare drags on for months on end with a large number of civilian casualties.
Mid Summer and it is extremely hot and high American casualties result.
There is quick pressure back home to bring the war a quick conclusion.
Against uncontrollable civil unrest Baghdad finally falls and Saddam is nowhere to be seen.
There is a coup in Saudi Arabia and America's troubles only just begin


Well I hope I am wrong

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll


Dirty urban guerilla warfare drags on for months on end with a large number of civilian casualties.


There is a coup in Saudi Arabia and America's troubles only just begin



If the war isn't all over quickly, I doubt it will consist of urban guerilla warfare. Its too easy for the US to target them and starve them out. Its more likely that any Iraqis loyal to Saddam will head for remote areas, and stage attacks from there. (Like in Afghanistan, where the main cities fell, but Al Quaeda stayed in the hills.)

And even if there is a coup in Saudi Arabia, who would care? The place is almost as bad (if not worse) than Iraq when it comes to human rights violations. They are very two-faced right now, telling the Americans they are "allies", yet supporting terrorism and islamic fundamentalism. At least if there were a coup, all their cards would be put on the table.

[Hypocolius]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll

France does not veto as it bribed in the back rooms to back down with a trade deal
America and its allies invade Iraq with UN support.
Baghdad is quickly surrounded but Saddam refuses to back down.
Dirty urban guerilla warfare drags on for months on end with a large number of civilian casualties.
Mid Summer and it is extremely hot and high American casualties result.
There is quick pressure back home to bring the war a quick conclusion.
Against uncontrollable civil unrest Baghdad finally falls and Saddam is nowhere to be seen.
There is a coup in Saudi Arabia and America's troubles only just begin


Well I hope I am wrong

Wait, I recognise you, you're Tom Clancy! Seriously though, that is not a happy vision you have there.

Well, Blair has suffered his first resignation and now Clare Short is threatening to go as well. Many others will follow if there is a war without a 2nd resolution. Blair faces a domestic political earthquake.

What I don't understand is this : France and Russia (and China) have been very clear indeed that they WILL NOT back a resolution authorising war. A resolution not authorising war is purposeless. Blair desperately needs that resolution. So Bush, Powell and Blair keep on parroting how they are 'confident' that they are going to get this 2nd resolution authorising war. Are they completely mad? Do they think Russia and France are going to turn around and say..."oh well, we changed our minds, you can have a 2nd resolution authorising war."? Somehow I don't think it is very likely.

My predictions :

The 2nd resolution either won't happen, or it will be vetoed, or it will be so watered down it does not authorise war.

US & UK will launch a pre-emptive strike on Iraq anyway, in clear breach of international law.

Clare Short, several PPSs, and possibly several other higher-ranking ministers will resign leaving Blair in by far the weakest position of any wartime Prime Minister in British history. If the war is short and successful he will survive, although the people of Britain no longer trust him. The longer it drags on, and the more casualties, the more desperately exposed will Blair become.

The worst-case scenario involves a long drawn-out campaign of urban warfare in the Iraqi summer while Saddam lobs chemical scuds at Tel Aviv, and the whole of the middle-east descends into chaos. As a previous poster has already said - Americas troubles will then only just be starting, not least because if this goes tits-up it will be the last time Britain provides a fig-leaf of respectability for a war-mongering United States starting illegal wars. Blair is already in serious trouble - there's no way he will repear this.

[Reginald]

UCE,

If this were a strickly "party" issue that she was resigning over, I think you would be right. However it isnt.

I would hazard a very very vague guess as follows....

No second resolution (I agree with you here about the US/UK confidence on this issue, maybe from the other side of the arguement but you most definately have a point).

Some Labour PPS's, Claire Short, Possibly Robin Cook (although this may be seen as sour grapes because he lost the job to Straw, diluting its impact somewhat), people like Joan Ruddock will quit various committees etc. and there will be an increase in the general discontentment in the Labour Party.

It wont result in Blair losing the job as PM.

The war will start without second resolution, I think it will be quick and decisive. I belive that the Iraqi troops will rout and Saddam will either be left to fend for himself, or one of his trusteds will do the dirty deed.

I think Evidence will be found suggesting some Chemical and Biological weapons storage. I also think that items restricted by the sanctions will be found of French, German and Russian origin. Although I will point out that I dont think they have Directly sold these items to the Iraqis.

The populace of the UK seeing some kind of vindication will then do what they do best, worry about who will win the FA cup.

People are funny things, if it all turns out "ok" they get on with the next thing, people have very short term memories when it comes to politics. (I mean look at Thatch!!)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Well, Blair has suffered his first resignation and now Clare Short is threatening to go as well. Many others will follow if there is a war without a 2nd resolution. Blair faces a domestic political earthquake.

What I don't understand is this : France and Russia (and China) have been very clear indeed that they WILL NOT back a resolution authorising war. A resolution not authorising war is purposeless. Blair desperately needs that resolution. So Bush, Powell and Blair keep on parroting how they are 'confident' that they are going to get this 2nd resolution authorising war. Are they completely mad? Do they think Russia and France are going to turn around and say..."oh well, we changed our minds, you can have a 2nd resolution authorising war."? Somehow I don't think it is very likely.

My predictions :

The 2nd resolution either won't happen, or it will be vetoed, or it will be so watered down it does not authorise war.

US & UK will launch a pre-emptive strike on Iraq anyway, in clear breach of international law.

Clare Short, several PPSs, and possibly several other higher-ranking ministers will resign leaving Blair in by far the weakest position of any wartime Prime Minister in British history. If the war is short and successful he will survive, although the people of Britain no longer trust him. The longer it drags on, and the more casualties, the more desperately exposed will Blair become.

The worst-case scenario involves a long drawn-out campaign of urban warfare in the Iraqi summer while Saddam lobs chemical scuds at Tel Aviv, and the whole of the middle-east descends into chaos. As a previous poster has already said - Americas troubles will then only just be starting, not least because if this goes tits-up it will be the last time Britain provides a fig-leaf of respectability for a war-mongering United States starting illegal wars. Blair is already in serious trouble - there's no way he will repear this.

Blair will walk away from this situation standing tall and looking good because he has truth on his side. I think it is great that politicians surrounding Blair are resigning. That always happens when freedom is threatened. The weak in politics bail out on the strong and the strong have to carry the weak. It is situations like this that separate the corn from the chaffe.

Saddam won't be lobbing chemical warheads into Israel this summer. Iraq won't be lobbing spitballs at Israel two weeks after we attack. Coalition forces will have complete control of Iraq in less than one month and will be embraced by the Iraqi populations as heroes.

This century is all about selling the idea of America and freeing every human on earth. It will be an interesting century.

JK

[ssibal]

I think after Blix admits to the unmanned aircraft that Iraq is not supposed to have and did not declare then the "second" resolution will pass.
As for the war, hopefully the thousands of missiles and bombs launched the first few days will scare the Iraqis enough to surrender.

Nuclear and biological disaster.

JK



Blair will walk away from this situation standing tall and looking good because he has truth on his side



Blair is liar. Blair was elected on a 'trust me' ticket. NOBODY trusts Blair. As usual, your idea of what is really going on in the world bears not the slightest resemblance to what is actually going on.


This century is all about selling the idea of America and freeing every human on earth.


Selling the idea of America?

TO WHO? :eek:

We have seen America. We don't want any part of it. Salute your own flag, JK - I will use it as toilet roll.

[Reginald]

Posted by UCE

NOBODY trusts Blair

Not true UCE, gross generalisation there.

As usual, your idea of what is really going on in the world bears not the slightest resemblance to what is actually going on.

Much as I would agree with this sentiment I think it is also a case of the pot calling the kettle black.


We have seen America. We don't want any part of it. Salute your own flag, JK - I will use it as toilet roll.

"We"? who are we? And when UCE, were you elected as spokesperson for the rest of the human race?

Originally posted by Reginald
Posted by UCE


"We"? who are we? And when UCE, were you elected as spokesperson for the rest of the human race?

The rest of the human race are doing a pretty good job of speaking for themselves. In their millions, all over the world.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
We have seen America. We don't want any part of it. Salute your own flag, JK - I will use it as toilet roll.



Oh, that was great :D

[Mike B.]

These two really are priceless...

If any American on this board said the things they did, they would be the first to cry crocidile tears and scream about "American arrogance."

Yet they spew hate, sterotypes, and all those wonderful things all the time...

blatant hypocrisy

It doesn't do any good to use JK as an example since nobody really takes him seriously...and he rightfully gets jumped on all the time.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


The rest of the human race are doing a pretty good job of speaking for themselves. In their millions, all over the world.

What? You mean the 15-20 million out of 6 billion?

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Mike B.

It doesn't do any good to use JK as an example since nobody really takes him seriously...and he rightfully gets jumped on all the time.

Are you seriously suggesting that Jedi is a nuts?

I wonder what his pals are going to say about this.

[Supercharts]

I venture to guess that if Iraq uses bio/chem munitions the US will use a small nuke on Tikrit.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by Q-Source

I wonder what his pals are going to say about this.
You mean Jedi actually has friends?:eek:

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
#4 - If Iraq doesn't have any links to Al Quaeda, why should it matter if they get all the information on them? (Just wondering)


I was kind of laying the groundwork for #6 and saying that other things would be going on simultaneously to the Iraq war. There doesn't need to be a real connection between Iraq and al Quaida for al Quaida to decide that the timing would be right.


#6&7 - Al Quaeda and the Palestinians don't need much of an excuse to launch an attack.

Possibly true. I have heard some things in the news to suggest that they may be waiting for the war to make their next big move.


#10 - What does the North Korea situation have to do with the U.S.?


Some people have suggested that, if there isn't a coordination going on, both NK and now Iran may be seeing the Iraq situation as the best time to have an impact on the world stage. Perhaps it's a backlash to the "Axis of Evil" statement by Bush.


#11 - What do you base this on?


No semi-smoking gun has been found thus far. Weak, I know. I was being provocative.


#12 - Some Arab states may not like Iraq getting invaded.


A lot of hopeful ideas in what you said. While I'm not really convinced that all of the Arab states will cause a coordinated rise in oil prices, there's a good possibility that a few will do something if #11 comes to pass. With the fragility of the world market right now, that could have pretty big ripples.


#13 and 14 - Assume that terrorism will actually increase. Again, 'wishful' thinking on the anti-war side. (Not that I expect many to really want that.) .

Not exactly terrorism -- more of the fear of a backlash if things go wrong in the Iraq war. If Bush finds the smoking gun, then things may (slowly) right themselves. If he doesn't find the smoking gun, there could be ripples from many places beyond even what I listed for many years to come.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

Possibly true. I have heard some things in the news to suggest that they may be waiting for the war to make their next big move.

Well, if there are 'X' number of al Quaeda operatives loose in the world, either they will launch there attacks all at once (if they are timing things to coincide with the war), or they will stretch things out over months/years (assuming they don't give up and retire to Florida.) I'm not sure what would cause the most problems... one big attack, or a bunch of little attacks where people don't know when they'll end. (Kind of like the difference between pulling off a bandaid fast or slow.)

I do remember hearing an analyst talking about al Quaeda, and he said they tend not to plan things around other events (preferring to set their own schedule), but they weren't talking about the upcoming war.

Originally posted by dsm

Some people have suggested that, if there isn't a coordination going on, both NK and now Iran may be seeing the Iraq situation as the best time to have an impact on the world stage. Perhaps it's a backlash to the "Axis of Evil" statement by Bush.

There is some evidence to show this is true...
http://www.theonion.com/onion3905/north_korea.html

Not sure if I really trust this source though...

Originally posted by dsm

No semi-smoking gun has been found thus far. Weak, I know. I was being provocative.

Just wondering what you mean by "semi-smoking". They've found Iraq has stuff that they shouldn't have. (Mostly delivery systems, but no actual chemical or bio weapons.) If anything, I'd say we've found the 'semi-smoking' gun, just not the 'fully-smoking' gun.

[kedo1981]

Iran has been relatively silent considering the situation, why, because Iraq is a bigger threat to them than almost anybody else. Sa-dam with nukes makes the Mullahs piss their robes.
Many more yanks and brits could die in this one than in 91 but we have to do it.

[richardm]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Clare Short is threatening to go as well.

Can this be the same Clare Short who resigned her opposition post at the last Gulf War, in order to express her disapproval of the Labour party's support of the war? And that was with all the appropriate resolutions in place. I think her position now ("If there is war without a second resolution I'll Jolly well resign!") amounts to grandstanding - I expected rather better from her, to be honest.

[richardm]

Originally posted by dsm
Not that I believe all of this is going to happen, but this seems to be what is shaping up:


Bush (et.al.) continue lobbying the UN for a resolution, but ultimately fail to get a majority in the Security Council.

All right, so it's the nightmare scenario, but are we all that far from this scenario? :eek:


I think that they well get a majority, but will get veto'd.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Just wondering what you mean by "semi-smoking". They've found Iraq has stuff that they shouldn't have. (Mostly delivery systems, but no actual chemical or bio weapons.) If anything, I'd say we've found the 'semi-smoking' gun, just not the 'fully-smoking' gun.


Well, that's mildly smoking. Semi-smoking would be delivery systems capable of reaching the US (including strong terrorist links). Smoking would be the actual bio/chem/nuke material.

The reason I separate mildly and semi is that the mildly should be an issue to other (closer to Iraq) nations rather than to the US. They (Iran, Israel, etc.) should be clamoring for action against Iraq based upon this evidence rather than the US. Mildly smoking should not be an immediate concern to the US (unless allies make it a top priority). By the US making it an immediate issue for war where these other nations are not, we may be unnecessarily putting our credibility on the line where we really should just be backing up someone else in need of help.

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

I do remember hearing an analyst talking about al Quaeda, and he said they tend not to plan things around other events (preferring to set their own schedule), but they weren't talking about the upcoming war.


There are a few possibilities here. All these different groups (al Quaida, North Korea, Iran, Philippine terrorists, etc.) may choose to do something at the beginning of the Iraq war for one or more of many reasons:


They've coordinated to do something in concert (we don't know how much they talk to each other).
With US concerns focused on Iraq, they (NK) may think they can get a better deal now rather than later.
With US concerns focused on Iraq, they (aQ) may think they stand a better chance of hitting their targets.
With world concerns focused on Iraq, they (Iran) may think they can play upon sympathies if the US doesn't find the smoking gun.


They don't have to be coordinated with each other (or Iraq). They may just be recognizing an opportunity.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

Well, that's mildly smoking. Semi-smoking would be delivery systems capable of reaching the US (including strong terrorist links). Smoking would be the actual bio/chem/nuke material.

They do have a delivery system capable of reaching the U.S.

Its called FedEx.

Seriously, there are many ways to smuggle in weapons into the U.S. For example, bioweapons could be mailed. (Remember the panic when a letter with Anthrax was received.) Shipping containers aren't inspected very well, and could contain chem weapons.

Iraq could use one of those scenarios itself, or they could sell (or give) the stuff to Al Quaeda, and let them have fun with it (which would give them denyability).

[rikzilla]

The US and UK have the finest most professional armed forces on earth. (aside from Israel)

Iraq is defended by conscripts who will surrender faster than a Frenchman on speed.

Baghdad is defended by the Special Republican Guard. SRG units are well maintained and highly capable when fighting Kurdish or Shia'a insurgents. However. the SRG has not the firepower or professionalism to stand for long against a real army. The only real useful tactic the SRG may be able to employ is in using their captive population as shields. Still this tactic will fail. The people of Baghdad are no more motivated to save Saddam's regime than the afore mentioned conscripts are. Where people can flee the fighting they will.....there will be no wholesale slaughter of civilians unless Saddam orders chemical munitions to be used in the city. In that nightmare scenario thousands may die,...but at least they will be the last of the many hundreds of thousands of people Saddam has butchered since taking control of Iraq.

My prediction is that the war will be short....anticlimactic. I believe France will veto the 2nd resolution and thereby drag the UN into irrelevancy. In the UK, Blair will survive the war simply because he and GWB will be proven correct. The Mukhabarrat's files, if taken intact, should end up proving the matter of Saddam's terrorist connections and WMD hiding places.

The British people are not like the cowardly euros. They are of hardier stock. Remember Maggie Thatcher....those Argies weren't even going to succeed in stealing a worthless sheep filled rock on her watch. The spirit and gumption of the Iron Lady is shared by the silent majority of Britons who are bound to be damned tired of watching the spineless lefties give them a bad name.

-zilla

(I guess we won't have much longer to wait before we find out who's right. If all goes as I have rationally predicted I suggest we pull out these dire predictions to see who gets the JREF "chicken little" award!)

:D :p

[dsm]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Iraq could use one of those scenarios itself, or they could sell (or give) the stuff to Al Quaeda, and let them have fun with it (which would give them denyability).


Yes, but without the "smoking" gun of the bio/chem weapons, basing a war with another country on this possibility just makes the US (and, in particular, Bush) look like it's out to get Saddam and using any pretext it can to justify it's position.

In truth, do really think we will be any safer against the scenario you list after Iraq is removed as a threat? There are other places that bio/chem (even dirty nuke) weapons can be gotten from -- they may already be in the hands of the terrorists. Just as the "big stick" approach that Israel takes in retaliating against the Palestinians hasn't slowed that conflict down, without the smoking gun, the war with Iraq may give reason to their "jihad" against the US. With the "smoking" gun, at least there will be people to rally to our side against the threat.

[dsm]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Baghdad is defended by the Special Republican Guard. SRG units are well maintained and highly capable when fighting Kurdish or Shia'a insurgents. However. the SRG has not the firepower or professionalism to stand for long against a real army. The only real useful tactic the SRG may be able to employ is in using their captive population as shields. Still this tactic will fail. The people of Baghdad are no more motivated to save Saddam's regime than the afore mentioned conscripts are. Where people can flee the fighting they will.....there will be no wholesale slaughter of civilians unless Saddam orders chemical munitions to be used in the city. In that nightmare scenario thousands may die,...but at least they will be the last of the many hundreds of thousands of people Saddam has butchered since taking control of Iraq.


Hmmm. Hadn't considered this. One other possibility is that some (large?) group of fleeing civilians is mistakenly killed by the allies fearing a suicide attack... :eek:


(I guess we won't have much longer to wait before we find out who's right. If all goes as I have rationally predicted I suggest we pull out these dire predictions to see who gets the JREF "chicken little" award!)

:D :p

Indeed. Maybe it will be the "bearer of the largest set of rose colored glasses" award.

:D :p

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm


Yes, but without the "smoking" gun of the bio/chem weapons, basing a war with another country on this possibility just makes the US (and, in particular, Bush) look like it's out to get Saddam and using any pretext it can to justify it's position.


Of course, why would he have weapons delivery systems (the "slightly smoking" gun) if he didn't have the chem/bio weapons to put inside them? Then, there is also Blix saying that there are thousands of litres of Anthrax and other stuff unaccounted for.

I think they'll find something in Iraq.
Originally posted by dsm

In truth, do really think we will be any safer against the scenario you list after Iraq is removed as a threat? There are other places that bio/chem (even dirty nuke) weapons can be gotten from -- they may already be in the hands of the terrorists. Just as the "big stick" approach that Israel takes in retaliating against the Palestinians hasn't slowed that conflict down, without the smoking gun, the war with Iraq may give reason to their "jihad" against the US. With the "smoking" gun, at least there will be people to rally to our side against the threat.
Will I be 'totally safe'? No, you're right, they can get some of this stuff elsewhere. (Heck, they were making Ricine in London...)

Will I be 'safer'? I think so. By invading Iraq, you remove one more state sponser of terrorism. And although some may say they are joining the "jihad" because of it, you will also instill fear and respect among countries of the world, because they realize that the west is willing to back its words with actions. Plus, with a democratic Iraq, other countries in the region may start to ease up on their own populations, so they don't look as oppresive by comparison.

(edited for spelling)

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm

Hmmm. Hadn't considered this. One other possibility is that some (large?) group of fleeing civilians is mistakenly killed by the allies fearing a suicide attack... :eek:

An alternate scenario is that Iraq will put some of its own troops in U.S. or U.K. uniforms, and kill other Iraqis, to blame it on the coalition forces. (There have been recent news reports that Iraq has ordered these uniforms.)

[dsm]

Interesting point from James Carville on CNN:

In '91, 85% of the cost of the Gulf War was paid for by countries other than the US. This time, it will probably be less than 1%.

And, of course, this time will be much more expensive.

[crackmonkey]

Curious change of heart by Clare Short - she was downright hawkish over the Kosovo conflict... yet another non-UN-sanctioned war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/350684.stm

[crocodile deathroll]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll

France does not veto as it bribed in the back rooms to back down with a trade deal
America and its allies invade Iraq with UN support.
Baghdad is quickly surrounded but Saddam refuses to back down.
Dirty urban guerilla warfare drags on for months on end with a large number of civilian casualties.
Mid Summer and it is extremely hot and high American casualties result.
There is quick pressure back home to bring the war a quick conclusion.
Against uncontrollable civil unrest Baghdad finally falls and Saddam is nowhere to be seen.
There is a coup in Saudi Arabia and America's troubles only just begin


Well I hope I am wrong


My first two prediction were wrong. I guess I am off the a pretty bad start!! A bad start because on those two predictions at least I hoped I was right.
I hope I am wrong on the remaining ones

[dsm]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll

My first two prediction were wrong. I guess I am off the a pretty bad start!! A bad start because on those two predictions at least I hoped I was right.
I hope I am wrong on the remaining ones

Well, so far, my predictions are on track.

:(

[crocodile deathroll]

The pressure to bring the war to a rapid conclusion will be so great I would not be surprised if the war will be finished bar all the mopping up within a month. America can not afford to let it drag on till summer when average maximum temperatures in Baghdad in July are 44°C (114°F).

So I predict the war will end quickly but N Korea is a real wild card and I cannot predict anything there.

[a_unique_person]

Who can tell? There is the element of risk that must be assessed.
There were many doomsayers before afghanistan. As it turns out, they were partly right. The war was much easier to win than expected, but the violence and internal warring seems to be just as deadly as ever.

best case

1. Iraqi army will be mashed.
2. A government that is democratic and moderate will emerge
3. we will alll live happily ever after.

worst case

1. Turkey starts war with united Kurdish people.
2. Yes men installed in Baghdad, popular unrest builds.
3. Iran takes advantage of instability to tilt at Iraq.
4. Pakistan, to prove it is not a lacky of the US, tilts at India again.
5. Saudi, despite doing all it can to prove it is every bit as repressive as the Taliban, is toppled because it allows US bases on it's soil.
6. Low key terrorist attacks on US soil.
7. US stock market dives.
8. Recession.
9. world recession
10. Worldwide depression.
11. More wars due to global instability.

[Drooper]

world wide depression??? :rolleyes:

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Drooper
world wide depression??? :rolleyes:

Yes leading to a major increase in drug manufacturers profits, prozac etc....More jobs, more money.....

Thus the world economy goes full circle, all ready for another right royal punch up.:p

[crackmonkey]

I think the biggest danger is from al-Qaeda and other Islamists being opportunistic and striking at friendly nations in the Middle East, Kuwait, Saudi and Egypt in particular. There has been some evidence that al-Qaeda is recruiting for attacks against the oilfields of Saudi and Kuwait, and to attempt to destabilize Egypt.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by dsm
Interesting point from James Carville on CNN:

In '91, 85% of the cost of the Gulf War was paid for by countries other than the US. This time, it will probably be less than 1%.

And, of course, this time will be much more expensive.
True, its going to be costly for the U.S. I remember news reports a few months ago suggesting the U.S. would use Iraqi oil money to 'pay back' the cost of liberating the people. If the Iraqis really want to be rid of Saddam, it would be 'fair', but it would be a horrible public relations mess. (All the anti-war people saying "Yes, it was about oil.")

Of course, there are some things that would offset the costs:
- The war itself will force some government spending (for weapons manufacturers, or for companies rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure.) Not an ideal use of government money, but it will provide a few jobs.
- Once Iraq is liberated, it will be able to sell more oil. This should reduce the price of oil, and provide a possible economic stimulus
- If Iraq is democratic and is no longer under sanctions, they may be able to rebuild their economy, and start buying and selling stuff from other countries. (They may not deal directly with the U.S., but it should improve the world economy and thus help all countries.)
I'm not saying these factors will pay for the war, but they may partially offset the costs.

So, we have a big short term expense, and a few benefits which will take effect in the mid to long term.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
I think the biggest danger is from al-Qaeda and other Islamists being opportunistic and striking at friendly nations in the Middle East, Kuwait, Saudi and Egypt in particular. There has been some evidence that al-Qaeda is recruiting for attacks against the oilfields of Saudi and Kuwait, and to attempt to destabilize Egypt.
Do you have any links for this?

Not that I don't believe you, I would just like to figure out the rational behind their plans. It seems to me that it would be a very bad tactical decision on the part of al Qaeda. (After all, most of their support from Saudi Arabia, and attacking Saudi infrastructure may cause funding to dry up.)

[dsm]

A new potential prediction rears it's head:

2.5 Britain backs out of the "coalition of the willing" due to pressure from it's people.

That ought make Jedi Knight sit up... ;)

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Drooper
world wide depression??? :rolleyes:

that was my worst case scenario. Have you looked at stock market prices lately? Japan stocks are now back at the levels they were 20 years ago. The US stocks, which were rising, are now firmly on a slippery slope.

[crackmonkey]

Segnasaur - it was a Washington Times article quoting an unnamed intelligence official. I believe it was Tuesday's paper.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by dsm
A new potential prediction rears it's head:

2.5 Britain backs out of the "coalition of the willing" due to pressure from it's people.

That ought make Jedi Knight sit up... ;)

Tony Blair will stand with the United States and carry Britain on his shoulders as Winston Churchill carried her. Blair cannot escape his destiny.

JK

[Nitpick]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

An alternate scenario is that Iraq will put some of its own troops in U.S. or U.K. uniforms, and kill other Iraqis, to blame it on the coalition forces. (There have been recent news reports that Iraq has ordered these uniforms.)

Either Saddam is very stupid, or these news reports are rubbish. Order them? Order them and hope no one will notice? When you've got billions, are ruthless and rule a country, why not just let some skilled craftsmen make some uniforms that look like the real ones when seen from the distance? It would still be too big a risk for him, I think. Those guys might defect, get caught or killed. (I mean the soldiers in the fake uniforms, not the craftsmen...)

Sounds to me like: well, if civilians get killed, it was their own army. Not that I think Saddam wouldn't be capable of such actions. I think we all agree he's a guy who doesn't care about anyone's life except his own. He may not be extremely bright either, but I simply don't think he would still be in power, if he was that stupid.

Edited to quote two sentences instead of one + to make 2 specifications

[dsm]

Originally posted by Drooper
world wide depression??? :rolleyes:

What's your prediction? :confused: