48 Hour Countdown Has Begun

Less than an hour ago, President Bush gave a televised speech in which he gave Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq or war will start.

Any bets on whether Saddam will leave?

I think he will want to bloody our nose a little first. Although the chances of him getting out alive afterward are slim to none.

If he is smart, he will leave.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I was pondering that at the office today. Do you think he is so isolated, and so surrounded by yes men that he actually thinks he can beat us? Or that he somehow "won" the gulf war in 91? But like you said, if he doesn't leave in 48 hours, he will leave in a body bag. And I think we need to stick with that. If after a week of getting his butt kicked, and he wants to leave, we say no. Too late. You can leave in handcuffs or in a coffin. Your choice.

I don't think Saddam thinks he can win. But I do think he wants to inflict major casualties on us. His desire to do so may override whatever sensibilities he has.

I don't know if he is crazy enough to launch a bio or chemical weapon against our troops, but he could be. He may even be crazy enough to launch a "dirty bomb." Or he may take his frustration out on Israel.

Once war starts, our military will be watching every Iraqi aircraft that leaves the ground. And they will shoot them down. If Hussein thinks he can get away after war breaks out, he will have to travel on the ground, Bin Laden-style.

That is, if his own people don't lynch him, Mussolini-style.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by LukeT
Less than an hour ago, President Bush gave a televised speech in which he gave Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq or war will start.

Any bets on whether Saddam will leave?

I think he will want to bloody our nose a little first. Although the chances of him getting out alive afterward are slim to none.

If he is smart, he will leave.

I'm trying really hard not to make this a partisan insult, but it seems to me that Bush isn't improving his international image. The first time I heard about the ultimatum, it conjured visions of a sheriff telling the bad guys thay have 48 hours to get out of Dodge.

If I thought of it, it's already making headlines in France.

[crackmonkey]

Yeah, probably. So?

[DrChinese]

Bush is a liar, plain and simple. No less so than Nixon ever was.

If we can invoke our national sovereignty - i.e. our right to defend ourselves from someone who has neither attacked nor threatened to attack us, but whom COULD attack us - then we are inviting future war on a scale which may take generations to overcome.

Because it is clear that the only objective criteria for starting such war is one leader's perception. IT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE, MR. PRESIDENT.

[Jim Lennox]

I would like to see what happens when other nations start making the same excuses as the US to go to war. With the moribund (yes I like to use that word) UN left toothless the US will have to stick to its metaphorical sheriff's guns and adopt the Hobbesian Leviathan role. Then there will be trouble...

My prediction: no one wins.

Maybe if both sides get utterly annihilated, then, just then, someone will learn something.

[compjan]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


I'm trying really hard not to make this a partisan insult, but it seems to me that Bush isn't improving his international image. The first time I heard about the ultimatum, it conjured visions of a sheriff telling the bad guys thay have 48 hours to get out of Dodge.

If I thought of it, it's already making headlines in France.

I had the same thoughts about the deadline and conditions, but realistically Bush had to give one. Otherwise he'd have to say, "we'll attack you this week no matter what", or "we'll attack you if Saddam leaves eventually."

Sigh - makes me yearn for the good old days when nation-states declared war on each other and just tried to capture the opponents capitals. So much more civilized!

CompJan

[armageddonman]

An ultimatum like this sounds like a very stupid excuse to start a war. Of course, Saddam won't leave, where should he go? It's not really a choice the US give him and in the end they will say: "Hey, we DID give him a last chance, didn't we? So, it's HIS fault that the war started."

The parallels to the beginning of WWI are really starteling.

[bjornart]

Originally posted by LukeT
I don't think Saddam thinks he can win. But I do think he wants to inflict major casualties on us. His desire to do so may override whatever sensibilities he has.

I don't know if he is crazy enough to launch a bio or chemical weapon against our troops, but he could be. He may even be crazy enough to launch a "dirty bomb." Or he may take his frustration out on Israel.

Once war starts, our military will be watching every Iraqi aircraft that leaves the ground. And they will shoot them down. If Hussein thinks he can get away after war breaks out, he will have to travel on the ground, Bin Laden-style.

That is, if his own people don't lynch him, Mussolini-style.

I disagree. I think Saddam thinks he can win. If the Iraqi military doesn't fall apart at the first shots it can likely keep inflicting massive casualties on the US, once the war moves into urban environments. Saddam likely believes the US will give in when the casualty count gets high enough.

This scenario might have him as the ruler of a pile of rubble when the US pulls out, but he'd be a ruler who's beaten the US, and who never cared much for the general well being of all his people anyways.

[crocodile deathroll]

I do not think it will be over in a week. I think at least Baghdad will be under seige for a while before it finally falls. And I would be very surprised and relieved if Saddam does not embark on some form of scorched earth policy. Even the locals in Baghdad with all thier stashes of petrol/gasoline will be tempted in shere desparation by just a box a matches.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by armageddonman:
The parallels to the beginning of WWI are really starteling.

How? WWI was the logical outcome of years of secret diplomacy and seething resentment, coupled with an arms race and the division of Europe into two evenly divided alliances. It's questionable whether the war would have occured at all if German foreign policy been under the complete control of a deranged Kaiser.

In the present situation in the Middle East we have a virtually friendless Iraq facing a coalition led by the United States. The outcome of any war between the two isn't in any real doubt. Where are the "startling parallels" in this?

[Reginald]

Even the locals in Baghdad with all thier stashes of petrol/gasoline will be tempted in shere desparation by just a box a matches.

What?

You think that the average Iraqi is going to start torching stuff??

An Iraqi gentleman was interviewed last week (BBC) and he had just started building a new house, when he was asked if this was folly, he replied no, house prices are expected to go through the roof.

Ask yourself why this could be? Could it have something to do with people actually having some enthusiasm for living in Iraq after Saddam has gone? That they could live in a sanction freee country, free from the kind of human rights abuses that have been so prevalent in the past.

So we have moved on a stage now and mooting the rights and wrongs of war have not stopped the UK and US from going ahead.

Is it now the fall back possition of the anti-war people to try and imply that it will be violent, destructive and bloodthirsty, in the hope that they can at least salvage the big "I TOLD YOU SO" at the end?







:rolleyes:

[Drooper]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
I do not think it will be over in a week. I think at least Baghdad will be under seige for a while before it finally falls. And I would be very surprised and relieved if Saddam does not embark on some form of scorched earth policy. Even the locals in Baghdad with all thier stashes of petrol/gasoline will be tempted in shere desparation by just a box a matches.

I think it is well worth preserving a number of comments now for posterity.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
How?

In a nutshell:

Before WWI there was a terrorist attack to which Germany reacted with an ultimatum for Serbia as Germany held Serbia accountable. The ultimatium was of a kind that couldn't be fulfilled so Germany had a pretense to declare war on Serbia. Thus started WWI.

[Lemastre]

I think the military part of Bush's war will be over quickly, with many Iraqi troops surrendering immediately. Some oil wells and other infrastructure may be torched in the process. I think Saddam will skitter over the border into some desolate area for a while and then be discovered in a major city, maybe even London or Paris, when the heat is off. Meanwhile, all his doubles will have shaved their mustaches and melted into the background. Saddam's major goal is to save his own skin. He has enough money stashed here and there to survive nicely if he can find asylum. Aside from lives lost in the actual fighting and bombing, major damage in all this will be suffered by the U.S., whose reputation as a bully will be strengthened, and by the UN, which will look more impotent.

[a_unique_person]

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on your action. Do not destroy oil wells, a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any command to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including the Iraqi people. War crimes will be prosecuted. War criminals will be punished. And it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."



funny about that, the US won't allow it's troops to be open to prosecution for war crimes.



Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people.



I would put then about 40th in the world at present in terms of military capability.

[thaiboxerken]

I wonder if the "Pre-emptive strike" self-defense arguement would work in a court of law for the average citizen. If you see someone you don't particularly like, just go up and punch/kick/shoot him. Tell the judge that you knew he had it out for you and you just decided to stop him before he started.

I think we should take Saddam out, but we shouldn't use this lame-ass excuse of "he's a threat to the USA". The world knows he's an ******* that has used force against many people, and his own people. Let's just tell people the truth and not fabricated truths. We want him out because he's crazy.

[LW]

Originally posted by armageddonman
Before WWI there was a terrorist attack to which Germany reacted with an ultimatum for Serbia as Germany held Serbia accountable. The ultimatium was of a kind that couldn't be fulfilled so Germany had a pretense to declare war on Serbia. Thus started WWI.
I think it might be a good idea for you to reread some of your history books. Meanwhile, I just want to point out that it was Austria-Hungary that issued the ultimatum. I give you that the Austrian government wanted to start a war against Serbia (and probably were already seeking a reason before the assasination) but that it enlarged into WWI had nothing to do with the assasination or the ultimatum, but was caused by the prewar diplomatic games.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


funny about that, the US won't allow it's troops to be open to prosecution for war crimes.

He said nothing like that.



I would put then about 40th in the world at present in terms of military capability.

Where would you put Kuwait's? It doesn't matter.

I must admit that I enjoy watching the "paralysis-through-education" crew imploding on this issue. When the dust clears, I don't think it will be you alarmists who will have the final "told ya so."

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by armageddonman:
In a nutshell:

Before WWI there was a terrorist attack to which Germany reacted with an ultimatum for Serbia as Germany held Serbia accountable. The ultimatium was of a kind that couldn't be fulfilled so Germany had a pretense to declare war on Serbia. Thus started WWI.

Like LW said, you sorely need to reread your history books. The Austrians, not the Germans, issued the ultimatum to the Serbs. IIRC Russia had given security assurances to Serbia, as had Germany to Austria. WWI blew up from there.

The only way a "startling parallel" could exist between that situation and the one in Iraq now would be if France, Germany and Russia were in a military alliance with Iraq, and were currently warning the US that an invasion of Iraq would mean war with them.

[richardm]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I wonder if the "Pre-emptive strike" self-defense arguement would work in a court of law for the average citizen. If you see someone you don't particularly like, just go up and punch/kick/shoot him. Tell the judge that you knew he had it out for you and you just decided to stop him before he started.



According to some of the gun control threads here, it appears to be perfectly acceptable to shoot someone first if you believe he is a credible threat to your safety.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Bush is a liar, plain and simple. No less so than Nixon ever was.

If we can invoke our national sovereignty - i.e. our right to defend ourselves from someone who has neither attacked nor threatened to attack us, but whom COULD attack us - then we are inviting future war on a scale which may take generations to overcome.

Because it is clear that the only objective criteria for starting such war is one leader's perception. IT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE, MR. PRESIDENT.

You obviously are new here. Listen and learn:
Well....let's us just see;

1993 The first bombing of the WTC. Mastermind was Ramzi Yusef. This man has been traced back to Iraq's Mukhabarrat intelligence agency by Laurie Mylroie an ex-Clinton admin Iraq expert.

Ramzi Yusef was then nearly captured in the Phillipines while he was working with Abu Sayyef terrorists on a plan to bomb 11 US airliners on the same day. (Abu Sayyef is affiliated with al Qaida)

He was captured in Peshawar (Pakistani Baluchistan). There is only one terrorist still at large in the world today that has been indicted in the first WTC bombing. He lives openly in Baghdad, supported by Saddam. (I forget his name, but it's in Mylroie's book)

Recently Khalid Sheik Muhammed was captured in the Pakistani Baluchistan region. He is Ramzi Yusef's uncle. He is also the #3 man in al Qaida's chain of command.

I invite you to connect ze dots at your leisure.

Before 9/11 the US suffered a major terrorist attack from al Qaida 5 times in 5 years. Since 9/11 and the active pursuit of al Qaida we have suffered this many major terrorist attacks by al Qaida. Zero. Al Qaida has only been able to pull one major attack (Bali) and those guys have been captured.

Matter of fact...al Qaida has been seriously dismantled since 9/11, and if they are saving themselves up for a major push against the US upon our attack of Iraq,...if the past is any guide... any success they achieve will be met by further pursuit and a further distruction of their network.

IMHO, 9/11 was too much of a success for them. Had they kept it down to overseas embassies and warships with losses of life in the hundreds, not thousands...they'd still be at it and there'd be no WOT. They were too clever by half. They started the WOT on 9/11,...it's a war they can't possibly win.

Once Baghdad falls we'll likely find out alot from the captured files of Muhabarrat. Which will lead to further exposure of worldwide terror networks. Therefore, my opinion is that even if the attack on Iraq sparks terrorism, it will be al Qaida's last gasp. Already they've been unable to mount any major attacks on the US...and everyday they lose more operatives to arrest. The WOT has indeed already resulted in less terrorism. The war on Iraq cannot fail to have the same result.

-zilla


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Review of Mylroie's Book:
An Eye-Opening Book, July 23, 2002
Reviewer: Alan Miller (see more about me) from Charlotte, NC
I first read this book in the aftermath of September 11th. Those who argue against a US invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein should read "Study of Revenge" first. Written well over a year or so before 9-11, its author makes a compelling argument that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, virtually every terrorist event orchestrated against the United States since that time, and that his influence and direction is the real power behind the Al-Qaeda terrorist network - not Bin Laden.

For anyone interested in Tom Clancy, spy novels, or books on espoinage, this is a great read. Laurie Mylroie illustrates the phases of the original WTC bombing plot, the arrival of two mysterious men (who she proves were agents of the Iraqi intelligence), and the elaborate construction of the bomb itself. She talks about the components of the bomb which included a hydrogen cyanide solution the bombers hoped would create a giant poison gas cloud to rise up through the towers and kill everyone. Had their plot worked, over a 100,000 people would have died, and 9-11 would have come eight years earlier in the first months of the Clinton administration. The transition of power would have left America is a more vunerable state than we find ourselves today.

In addition, Mylroie examines the Al-Qaeda network and its dwindling influence prior to the Iraqi defeat in the 1991 Gulf War. She posits that Saddam Hussein is providing training, money, and intelligence to Bin Laden in order to exact revenge on America. Bin Laden gets the glory he craves, and Saddam gets the revenge he craves without incurring the wrath of the world at large. She points out that Iraq and Al-Qaeda's interests conveniently intersect at key points, such as the demand US troops leave the Holy Land. Bin Laden wants infidels out of the land of Mecca. Saddam wants the Saudi oil fields unguarded so he can move in and take them.

After reading this, you will find yourself waiting impatiently for George Bush to send troops into Iraq, for our sake and for the sake of the oppressed Iraqi people...

This has been a learning moment...brought to you by Rikzilla ;)

[Reginald]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I wonder if the "Pre-emptive strike" self-defense arguement would work in a court of law for the average citizen. If you see someone you don't particularly like, just go up and punch/kick/shoot him. Tell the judge that you knew he had it out for you and you just decided to stop him before he started.

I think we should take Saddam out, but we shouldn't use this lame-ass excuse of "he's a threat to the USA". The world knows he's an ******* that has used force against many people, and his own people. Let's just tell people the truth and not fabricated truths. We want him out because he's crazy.

On your first point if the chap was simply disliked then no, it wouldnt wash.....

However if you knew that in the village he had just come from, he had killed, tortured, maimed, starved and otherwise abused the people there then yes it would be considered acceptable to kick his teeth in.

Of course if there was a decent police force in your hypothetical world rather than a "town committee" that sat around talking law and order but wouldnt put a policeman on the street under any circumstances then you wouldnt have to kick him.

On your second point I agree that the reason he has to go is primarily that he's a total crazy. (not the official line but I dont care).

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by armageddonman
An ultimatum like this sounds like a very stupid excuse to start a war. Of course, Saddam won't leave, where should he go?
Err...how about Saudia Arabia - they took Idi Amin. There is doubtless some country willing to play host to this guy and his charming sons.

It's not really a choice the US give him and in the end they will say: "Hey, we DID give him a last chance, didn't we? So, it's HIS fault that the war started."

Poor, poor SH - we didn't give him a chance. :rolleyes:

Look bud - he has had 12 years of chances and IT IS HIS FAULT THAT THE WAR STARTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The parallels to the beginning of WWI are really starteling.

Why don't you start w/ a couple of books on the subject before you spout off?? Here are 2;

"The Guns of August" by Barbara Tuckman
"Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War" by Robert Massie

Almost any library should have them.

Barkhorn.

[Lemastre]

Going after Saddam because he's "crazy" is a thin excuse for war. Anyway, he appears to be far from crazy in the sense of being out of control or unpredictable. He is a rather old-fashioned style of dictator who has cleverly squirreled away billions of dollars from his country's economy and who courts international opprobrium and threats from other nations to unify his supporters. He is smart enough to have used the tools of dictatorship well enough to keep him in office for a good many years. That guy in North Korea looks like more of head case than Saddam ever has, and he's far from crazy, too.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Lemastre
Going after Saddam because he's "crazy" is a thin excuse for war. Anyway, he appears to be far from crazy in the sense of being out of control or unpredictable. He is a rather old-fashioned style of dictator who has cleverly squirreled away billions of dollars from his country's economy and who courts international opprobrium and threats from other nations to unify his supporters. He is smart enough to have used the tools of dictatorship well enough to keep him in office for a good many years. That guy in North Korea looks like more of head case than Saddam ever has, and he's far from crazy, too.

Ok for crazy read EVIL.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Reginald


Ok for crazy read EVIL.

Nah, just a run-of-the-mill secular humanist in a position of (quasi-absolute) power. (He thinks it's absolute.)

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Bush is a liar, plain and simple. No less so than Nixon ever was.

If we can invoke our national sovereignty - i.e. our right to defend ourselves from someone who has neither attacked nor threatened to attack us, but whom COULD attack us - then we are inviting future war on a scale which may take generations to overcome.

Because it is clear that the only objective criteria for starting such war is one leader's perception. IT IS A SLIPPERY SLOPE, MR. PRESIDENT.

...so SILLY. :rolleyes:

You act as if Bush has taken a flyer here and is acting on a whim. This supposed plot - hatched by "one leader's perception" - has taken the better part of a year to get to this particular point (12 friggin' years if you count from the first Ceasfire Resolution [687]).

The US HAS allies - despite your heated statements - including most of Eastern Europe. This coalition tried using the UN - but was prevented by the unwillingness of France and Russia to put any teeth into a real deadline.

That SH possesses WMD cannot be doubted - therefore this is hardly a case of a rush to judgement.

Barkhorn.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x
Look bud - he has had 12 years of chances and IT IS HIS FAULT THAT THE WAR STARTED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


See what I mean?




Apart from that, my statement about WWI was not completely correct. Mea culpa.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by armageddonman


See what I mean?



Not in the least. However, I see what HE means.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Jocko


Not in the least. However, I see what HE means.

I mean that the US don't really have a reason to attack Iraq and thus are using a pretense to do so. They failed to convince the world that Iraq is a threat to anyone especially to the US. Instead of giving evidence, they provided outdated, wrong or FAKED evidence. Now they offer this totally laughable ultimatum in order to be able to say "well, he HAD a last chance".

There's only one authority that has the authority to decide if a UN resolution has been breached and that is the UN.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by armageddonman:
There's only one authority that has the authority to decide if a UN resolution has been breached and that is the UN.

And then who enforces the breached resolution? Those gallant Dutch blue-helmets who stood by at Srebernica?

[Jocko]

Originally posted by armageddonman


I mean that the US don't really have a reason to attack Iraq and thus are using a pretense to do so. They failed to convince the world that Iraq is a threat to anyone especially to the US. Instead of giving evidence, they provided outdated, wrong or FAKED evidence. Now they offer this totally laughable ultimatum in order to be able to say "well, he HAD a last chance".

There's only one authority that has the authority to decide if a UN resolution has been breached and that is the UN.

At the risk of sounding snotty, I would appreciate it if you stop pretending that the US just got a bee in its bonnet one day and decided to quit screwing around.

17 resolutions passed by the UN, got it? SEVENTEEN.
Saddam has violated the terms of surrender in a WAR HE STARTED 12 YEARS AGO- has violated them since day one.
There is no question who is in the right here. I get very weary with certain timid people who will try to re-cast the situation into terms of, "well he hasn't attacked America, so what's the big deal?"

IT DOESN'T MATTER. The UN, like it or not, has declared and reaffirmed a dozen times that Iraq is a threat and must be disarmed. And as usual, America gets to do the heavy lifting without so much as a thank-you. Indeed, our action is consistent with the UNSC's stance until France decided to play global power for old times' sake.

We don't mind the work. Just don't try to rephrase the question until you get an answer you like. There is no question any longer.

Hussein is out. You can thank us later.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by armageddonman


I mean that the US don't really have a reason to attack Iraq and thus are using a pretense to do so. They failed to convince the world that Iraq is a threat to anyone especially to the US. Instead of giving evidence, they provided outdated, wrong or FAKED evidence. Now they offer this totally laughable ultimatum in order to be able to say "well, he HAD a last chance".

There's only one authority that has the authority to decide if a UN resolution has been breached and that is the UN.

The UN is attempting to remake world society. They are good at legislating and making resolutions...but these "laws" are fantasy. The way a society speaks to it's criminals is not by way of resolution. We learned long ago that you cannot talk criminals out of being criminals. The way society seeks to enforce law is not by making speaches...society speaks via the police or military.

Please now tell me....since the UN is "the only authority" how are they going to enforce their law? What military option do they have against the US/UK/Spain...etc...?? (crickets chirp)

Obviously since the UN couldn't even get a tin-pot dictator like Saddam to listen to it...how are they going to exercise this "authority" you say they have?

You are busy looking at the "Great and Powerful Oz"...have a peek behing the curtain....get a dose of objective reality my friend. There is no one behind the curtain....the UN is an empty suit. It's time for a real leader to step forward....that leader is George W. Bush.

-zilla

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by Jocko


Hussein is out. You can thank us later.

Fine post , but I doubt the US will get any Kudos here. Its the way of the world you know.

Barkhorn.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by rikzilla


You obviously are new here. Listen and learn:

Well....let's us just see;

1993 The first bombing of the WTC. Mastermind was Ramzi Yusef. This man has been traced back to Iraq's Mukhabarrat intelligence agency by Laurie Mylroie an ex-Clinton admin Iraq expert.

[Further evidence of intrigue not quoted]


Your facts are wrong, or at least subject to dispute. Your quoted reference offers a theory, one which is not accepted even by the Bush administration. Even they have never claimed the World Trade Center I bombing was an Iraqi plot. There are people currently in jail in the U.S. for this crime, and the prosecution never alleged it was an Iraqi plot either.

Iraq has not harmed the U.S. in any way since the Gulf War. It has not threatened to harm us (unless you count promising to defend itself from a U.S. invasion as threatening).

You cannot say - by any reasonable standards of evidence - that any known non-Iraqi terrorist operative has worked for Iraq.

Perhaps such operatives met with an Iraqi agent at some time. I would gladly concede that. However, by that same standard of evidence (which is unreasonable), Donald Rumsfeld is complicit with Saddam's invasion of Kuwait because he met with Saddam personally in 1983.

The whole premise of your "evidence" is: the friend of my enemy is my enemy. We should have learned this lesson a hundred times by now, such simplistic world views are not effective in the long term. We supported Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war because we were against Iran, and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." And look where we are today.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Barkhorn1x


Fine post , but I doubt the US will get any Kudos here. Its the way of the world you know.

Barkhorn.

LOL...the world loves a winner. They'll be falling all over each other to be the first to jump back on the bandwagon of victory.

We live in interesting times.

-z

[voidx]

Regarding WWI as well, lets all remember that no one wanted that war. Several attempts were made by both sides, including the Germans to bring things back under control. As has been mentioned, Europe was volitile because of decades of arms races and build ups, the creation of alliances and promises of protection against military action, and many other factors. WWI was the freak child of a local conflict that boiled out of control despite the efforts of both sides. John Keegan's book on the first world war gives a great general summary of how this all came about.

[Doctor X]

Reginald:

Is it now the fall back possition of the anti-war people to try and imply that it will be violent, destructive and bloodthirsty, in the hope that they can at least salvage the big "I TOLD YOU SO" at the end?

Well said.

--J.D.

[jj]

He is a vicious, murderous person who is backed into a corner. He knows he can't win, and I am sure that his only desire at this point is to do as much damage to as many people in as many parts of the world as he can manage.

I'm almost sure he's going to distribute smallpox, influenza, and other diseases worldwide.

I would also expect he'll launch missiles at somebody, who that will be may depend on his current state of madness.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Jocko


At the risk of sounding snotty, I would appreciate it if you stop pretending that the US just got a bee in its bonnet one day and decided to quit screwing around.

17 resolutions passed by the UN, got it? SEVENTEEN.
Saddam has violated the terms of surrender in a WAR HE STARTED 12 YEARS AGO- has violated them since day one.
There is no question who is in the right here. I get very weary with certain timid people who will try to re-cast the situation into terms of, "well he hasn't attacked America, so what's the big deal?"

IT DOESN'T MATTER. The UN, like it or not, has declared and reaffirmed a dozen times that Iraq is a threat and must be disarmed. And as usual, America gets to do the heavy lifting without so much as a thank-you. Indeed, our action is consistent with the UNSC's stance until France decided to play global power for old times' sake.

We don't mind the work. Just don't try to rephrase the question until you get an answer you like. There is no question any longer.

Hussein is out. You can thank us later.

At the risk of pointing out the facts, Bush did get a bee in his bonnet and it started with September 12. That excuses nothing.

At the risk of pointing out the facts, U.N. resolutions should be enforced by the U.N. How can one rogue click (that's the U.S. et al) go out and act as world vigilantes?

Hussein will be out, that is not the point. No one is standing up for the man himself. The ends do not justify the means. International law - law the U.S. helped to fashion - is being violated.

Hey, don't accept my word for it, how about the words of George Bush Sr., from article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html:

In an ominous warning for his son, Mr Bush Sr said that he would have been able to achieve nothing if he had jeopardised future relations by ignoring the UN. “The Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had exceeded the UN mandate and gone on its own into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces.”

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Reginald


Ok for crazy read EVIL.
If the U.S. finds it okay to attack Iraq because its leader seems evil, then it must be okay to attack any state whose leader is deemed by the U.S. to be evil. However, I doubt that the possibility of such an attack can be counted on to dissuade or reform all the numerous nasty types who populate the governments of countries here and there -- they'd all deny being evil, anyway. It's also obvious that the U.S. can't afford a military big enough to invade every country that suffers under cruel and repressive regimes. And I doubt that we want any country to go about starting wars based on its own ideas of who's not nice enough or who makes them feel uneasy. Saddam may have ignored or violated UN resolutions, but that's the UN's problem to solve. It may be neighborly of Mr. Bush to offer the U.S. as the UN's strongarm guy, but he should wait till he's asked.

[Doctor X]

Saddam may have ignored or violated UN resolutions, but that's the UN's problem to solve. It may be neighborly of Mr. Bush to offer the U.S. as the UN's strongarm guy, but he should wait till he's asked.

Unfortunately, by then it will be too late.

--J.D.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Doctor X


Unfortunately, by then it will be too late.

--J.D.
Too late for what? Are you suggesting that unless George Bush invades Iraq right away, Iraq will inflict some cataclysm upon the world, and will do so before the UN can intervene? If you have evidence of this, please reveal it! In his pleas for international support, Mr. Bush has not produced any such evidence, although I'm sure it would bolster his case. In the absence of an imminent threat from Iraq, Mr. Bush's bellicosity is unseemly and appears a little out of hand and may lead to a bad precedent in international affairs. This is not say that Saddam and his ilk should be given the impression that their actions are not being observed and evaluated.

[Tricky]

Less than 48 hours. The clock ticks. You are a resident of Baghdad. You have lived there all your life and knew it when the madman was not in office. Your family is all there. You are not wealthy, but you make enough to stay alive. You watch the clock tick.

You hate Saddam with a passion, yet you can do nothing about him, surrounded as he is by his guard. You cannot even speak out against him, or you would be executed. All these things happen that you cannot control. You watch the second hand race around.

Now a bigger bully has come to punish Saddam. For this you are glad, but quickly you discover that the bigger bully will punish others as well. Innocents. Your family. Your friends. All those who lie in the path of this terrifying and powerful overlord. All you can do is wait, and watch the clock.

You gather your family. You try to arrange a stronghold as best you can. Saddam will not let you into his titanium-walled bunker. The mighty American bully must be sure to kill Saddam, so he must attack with "shock and awe", with strength enough to penetrate the strongest hidaway. What hope does your small home have against such force? How long can you live? How many minutes after the attack will you live? How many seconds?

You look into the faces of your family with the ultimate sadness of knowing you are probably seeing them for the last day. You hope none of them will suffer long. You embrace each one. You look at the clock. Tick tick tick tick......

[Tesserat]

Has anyone seen an estimate of how many civilian deaths can be expected in a war to oust Saddam?

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by jj
He is a vicious, murderous person who is backed into a corner. He knows he can't win, and I am sure that his only desire at this point is to do as much damage to as many people in as many parts of the world as he can manage.

I'm almost sure he's going to distribute smallpox, influenza, and other diseases worldwide.

I would also expect he'll launch missiles at somebody, who that will be may depend on his current state of madness.

Well - I doubt the smallpox part, but the rest sure has a ring of truth to it. He pretty much made his true nature clear when he was Governer of Texas. Got any opinions on the other guy?

As usual The Onion seems to be the last bastion of non-hysterical reaction in the U.S. media - ergo
http://www.theonion.com/onion3910/gulf_war_2.html

edited once for spelling (or lack of)

[Doctor X]

Are you suggesting that unless George Bush invades Iraq right away, Iraq will inflict some cataclysm upon the world, and will do so before the UN can intervene? If you have evidence of this, please reveal it!

12 years and counting. . . .

A number of threads exist which detail what Saddam has, what he is trying to get, and what he plans to do. We can also recommend a number of books.

--J.D.

This is turning into another pro- vs. anti-war topic.

I would really just like to hear people's predictions on what Saddam is going to do before, during, and after the 48 hour deadline has passed.

And if you believe he won't leave, how will the war progress?

Someone said he could run to Saudi Arabia earlier in this topic. I think that is unlikely. I think Algiers is more likely, it he leaves at all.

Saudi Arabia wouldn't take him in. That would imperil their already fragile position with the U.S.

I think some, in not most, of the Iraqi troops have already decided to lay down their arms the second the war starts. I believe some are already in contact with our forces and have made arrangements for their surrender.

The Iraqi army could itself become the liberators of Baghdad.

Anything is possible.

If the Iraqi army led the move on Baghdad, would this prevent the Special Republican Guard from fighting back?

Any potential for American blood being shed seems to hinge on what the SRG does. And on any special tricks Saddam has up his sleeve. So what kinds of tricks might we have up our sleeve to counter this?

The Baghdad stock market is one of the few in the world that has actually been making a lot of money these last few months. So somebody is optimistic there. I think it is an indicator that the Iraqi people are excited about the pending departure of Hussein.

Oil prices are dropping now that the crap is actually hitting the fan. I bet that is a big surprise to some of the gloom and doom folks, eh?

Let's get off the pro/anti debate and post our thoughts on what will happen in the next days or weeks or years. Our analysis is just as good as anything on TV.

One other thought. Suppose Saddam does get up and leave? What will the U.S. do then? :eek:

What will happen in Iraq?

Will we be content not to invade and just sit on the sidelines while Iraq breaks into civil war?

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Doctor X


12 years and counting. . . .

A number of threads exist which detail what Saddam has, what he is trying to get, and what he plans to do. We can also recommend a number of books.

--J.D.

Again - could say exactly the same about Bush - the irony would be funny if it wasn't so sad

[Baggle]

Originally posted by Tricky
Less than 48 hours. The clock ticks. You are a resident of Baghdad. You have lived there all your life and knew it when the madman was not in office. Your family is all there. You are not wealthy, but you make enough to stay alive. You watch the clock tick.

You hate Saddam with a passion, yet you can do nothing about him, surrounded as he is by his guard. You cannot even speak out against him, or you would be executed. All these things happen that you cannot control. You watch the second hand race around.

Now a bigger bully has come to punish Saddam. For this you are glad, but quickly you discover that the bigger bully will punish others as well. Innocents. Your family. Your friends. All those who lie in the path of this terrifying and powerful overlord. All you can do is wait, and watch the clock.

You gather your family. You try to arrange a stronghold as best you can. Saddam will not let you into his titanium-walled bunker. The mighty American bully must be sure to kill Saddam, so he must attack with "shock and awe", with strength enough to penetrate the strongest hidaway. What hope does your small home have against such force? How long can you live? How many minutes after the attack will you live? How many seconds?

You look into the faces of your family with the ultimate sadness of knowing you are probably seeing them for the last day. You hope none of them will suffer long. You embrace each one. You look at the clock. Tick tick tick tick......

Because most civilians in Baghdad will die, right? :rolleyes:

I can't wait until this war is over and people stop being so emotional and reactionary. I've done my best to try and be as moderate and considerate as possible on this issue, listening to anybody who will talk on the matter, and keeping an open mind. I have to say though, I'm getting tired of it. Almost everything discussed about the war here is raw emotion and very few people are willing to debate the facts; something we would never tolerate on any other issue. If you want to voice your anti war position and explain that it is because too many civilians will die, then fine. State your opinion, provided facts with sources, and be open to debate. When you start claiming that most civilians in Baghdad will probably die without any supporting evidence at all(as evidenced when Tricky mentioned that the person in his short story knows his family will probably die), things start going over the edge. It seems like that's all that is happening lately in this pro/anti war debate, and I grow more and more tired of it as the days pass.

This is not the appropriate forum for the type of things that are going on here. When most debates about this subject on this forum cannot be classified as free of raw emotion and purely logical, then something is wrong. I am looking forward to the day when more posters here will realize that and change the way they are acting. That is not to say that people are not entitled to their opinions, but merely to say that people should not be posting their opinions without a proper attitude and style. There is a proper way to do things on this forum, and I've seen less and less of it as the war has approached. Let all of the unwashed masses be fanatical about their opinions, but we should hold ourselves to a higher standard. We may have differing viewpoints, but we are all skeptics, after all. I am younger than probably 99% of the people reading this, with even less world experience than that, and even I can see this simple fact. Can we please try to turn this forum around to the way it was just a few short weeks ago?

Sorry about being slightly off topic, but I feel that this needs to be said.

-Baggle
PS- if people start "appreciation" threads after the war is over or after this is posted and start cyber hugging and telling everybody how much they love each other, like what happened in Banter a week or so ago, I will puke. I want nothing of the sort. Let's just all not say a word about it and take it upon ourselves to change the way we are posting. If even a small minority of the posting population does this, we'll be that much better off.

[Doctor X]

Again - could say exactly the same about Bush

No. He has not been in office for 12 years. He has not failed to hold Hussein to his obligations for 12 years.

- the irony would be funny if it wasn't so sad

If not a non sequitur perhaps.

--J.D.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Doctor X


No. He has not been in office for 12 years. He has not failed to hold Hussein to his obligations for 12 years.
--J.D.

You've got a good point - the fact that Bush almost certainly won't be in office for 12 years is at least a small silver lining in this whole thing

Originally posted by Doctor X

If not a non sequitur perhaps.

--J.D.

Yep I agree - definitely not - good to be on the same page here

[OdderMensch]

You've got a good point - the fact that Bush almost certainly won't be in office for 12 years is at least a small silver lining in this whole thing

It is entirely certain that bush will not be in power for more than 8 years. It is my hope that he only be in power for four.


and so that i may actively contribute to this thead.

If the Iraqi army led the move on Baghdad, would this prevent the Special Republican Guard from fighting back?

I doubt it.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by armageddonman:


And then who enforces the breached resolution? Those gallant Dutch blue-helmets who stood by at Srebernica?

You realise that this is just another strawman, do you?

[armageddonman]

[i]Originally posted by Jocko

17 resolutions passed by the UN, got it? SEVENTEEN.

That's nothing compared to other countries that get NOT attacked by the US.

So the US plan to breach international law in order to inforce international law?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by armageddonman:
You realise that this is just another strawman, do you?

No it isn't, since I did not misrepresent your argument. If the UN indeed has the sole power to make the decision whether a resolution has been breached, has it got the capability to enforce that resolution. Srebernica suggests it hasn't.

[armageddonman]

So you question the authority of the UN to make decisions concerning the UN because the actions of the UN haven't always been successful?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by armageddonman:
So you question the authority of the UN to make decisions concerning the UN because the actions of the UN haven't always been successful?

No, what I question is its ability to enforce those decisions. As long as it lacks this, the UN will be little more than a talking shop.

[Reginald]

On topic for Luke T.... :D

Saddam wont leave, well not untill the war starts, he's a chaos merchant. He wants to see his "Glorious" army die hopelessly for him. That will either be his last buzz or last thing to see before he legs it.

If you remember however Bush stated (quite rightly IMHO) that if fighting starts then the "safe haven" deal is off.

Its hard to filter whats coming out of Iraq at the moment, theres a lot of propaganda, a lot of right wing scare mongering and leftwing doomsaying.

I now believe he has some chemical munitions, I think they will be used albeit on a small scale. I also think he is capable of taking the "Hitler" line and believing that his people will have betrayed him at the end. This bodes ill for the average Iraqi, dont be suprised if some of those weapons end up being used on his own people.

I predict mass surrender of standard troops, medium resistance from RG units and fierce resistance from ERG units. However I also think that Saddam will either suicide or be shot by someone hoping to get immunity from the act.

As for escaping...I just dont see where he can go.

In the back of my mind I have the feeling that some desperate act will be carried out by him...just a hunch.

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by armageddonman:


No, what I question is its ability to enforce those decisions. As long as it lacks this, the UN will be little more than a talking shop.

The UN has very often been successful in enforcing it's decicions. Do you think it's right to break international law to enforce international law?

[richardm]

Staying on-topic for a change...

I think that Saddam is not mad enough to think he can get away this time, and will try a pre-emptive strike. He knows that the first thing we'll do when the 48 hours is up is target his ability to fight back, and will try to get in a few shots early on the conveniently-massed troops waiting to invade. Hit back first, as it were. In that way, he can help to inflame further the opinion of the people at home, and weaken the first stages of the ground assault.

He might also have an early pop at Israel, in the hope that they'll overreact and bring other Arab countries into the fray.

Will he leave... Is he still actually there, I wonder? He's supposed to have a number of lookalikes; could he have nipped off to the Seychelles while nobody was looking?

[Reginald]

Originally posted by armageddonman


The UN has very often been successful in enforcing it's decicions. Do you think it's right to break international law to enforce international law?

I dissagree. The UN was virtually useless while the soviets vetoed everything, they can't sort out the Cyprus problem that has rattled on forever. They are good when it comes to organising aid, but that is hardly enforcing a decision.

Is there any need to add the Iraqi debarcle to this para?

On the subject of international law, there is still some dispute as to the legality of the US and UK action AND also show me one country on the security council that HASNT broken international law.

I know the UK did when they sent arms to Sierra Leone against UN instruction.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by richardm
Staying on-topic for a change...

I think that Saddam is not mad enough to think he can get away this time, and will try a pre-emptive strike. He knows that the first thing we'll do when the 48 hours is up is target his ability to fight back, and will try to get in a few shots early on the conveniently-massed troops waiting to invade. Hit back first, as it were. In that way, he can help to inflame further the opinion of the people at home, and weaken the first stages of the ground assault.

He might also have an early pop at Israel, in the hope that they'll overreact and bring other Arab countries into the fray.

Will he leave... Is he still actually there, I wonder? He's supposed to have a number of lookalikes; could he have nipped off to the Seychelles while nobody was looking?

I know its a bit nasty to say it but I was kind of hoping for a Mussolini/Ceausescu end result to Mr Saddam here.

I think it does the world of good to have a kind of closure on these things.

[Shane Costello]

Originally psoted by armageddonman:
Do you think it's right to break international law to enforce international law?

The UK attorney general believes that any military action would not break international law.

And if international law is broken, then who's going to enforce it?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by OdderMensch
You've got a good point - the fact that Bush almost certainly won't be in office for 12 years is at least a small silver lining in this whole thing

It is entirely certain that bush will not be in power for more than 8 years. It is my hope that he only be in power for four.


Are you sure?

I have a feeling that he may not go when his time is up... especially if we are embroiled in taking over France. You know, for their own good.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by DrChinese

Are you sure?

I have a feeling that he may not go when his time is up... especially if we are embroiled in taking over France. You know, for their own good.

...are you seriously suggesting he will attempt to become a Dictator??? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


EDIT: oh wait, you must have been joking. Sometimes it's damn hard to tell w/ some of the posters around here.

Barkhorn.

[Doctor X]

Indeed, whilst I enjoy a good joke, fantasies such as this do not add to the discussion.

Right, will he leave?

One thing I have read and heard is that he does not behave "logically"--even Arabian commentators state he does not do things they would expect a man in his position would do--stark raving mad or not.

For example, the easiest way for him to have screwed the US and Co. way back when was to back out of Kuwait just before the deadline as a show of generosity and start working hard on his weapons. According to sources [Voices in his head.--Ed.], Saddam considered his invasion without a "nuculer" [Stop that.--Ed.] a nuclear weapon a mistake.

Fine.

Next way he could have screwed us was to reveal "some stuff." If he had stated that, yes, in our defense, blah blah, in the declaration way back that he had some stuff, it would certainly look as if the inspections worked. He would have bought more time.

So, what will he do? I think--on a limb here--he believes he can survive anything. He has, actually. He has survived for thirty years after losing something like five wars.

A lot will depend on what the Iraqi military does. If they desert him, he may just well panic and try to flee.

Of course this is all speculation.

--J.D.

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by armageddonman
So the US plan to breach international law in order to inforce international law?
If the UNSC were a legislative body or a court of law, France would have to recuse itself from voting due to a conflict of interest in Iraq. Of course, Russia, the US, and the UK, would also have to recuse themselves as well.

I'm not opposed to the UN. But international politics limit the UN's ability to act as a law maker and enforcer.

It seems to be the universal opinion on here that the Elite (Special?) Republican Guard is going to put up a big fight in Baghdad.

I am going to break that unanimity (sp?) and say they probably will not.

Once we have the entire city surrounded, and have taken the airport, and the remaining troops know the entire rest of the army has surrendered and are being well-fed and cared for, their will will be broken. All resistance would lead to is the destruction of Baghdad.

I just don't see door-to-door fighting happening.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by DrChinese


At the risk of pointing out the facts, Bush did get a bee in his bonnet and it started with September 12. That excuses nothing.

Of course it doesn't, because it's irrelevant. The UN mandates you prize so highly have been violated day in and day out by Saddam since 1991. We have had the authority to act since the day after the surrender, and 9-11 was a wake-up call that apparently never made it out to your little burg.

At the risk of pointing out the facts, U.N. resolutions should be enforced by the U.N. How can one rogue click (that's the U.S. et al) go out and act as world vigilantes?

You call the US a rogue state for carrying out the stated intentions of the UNSC? Just because one nation DID get a bee up its bonnet and totally delegitimized the process itself? Remind me not to ask you how to handle striking police officers.

You, sir, advocate paralysis through empty diplomacy.

Hussein will be out, that is not the point.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. That is very much the point. If not by us, then how? If not now, when? I am deathly sick of UN intellectual (used in the perjorative sense, btw) apologists offering no viable alternatives.

No one is standing up for the man himself.

Yes you arem if you advocate one more wasted day of empty rhetoric wasted on a savage who butchers his own people and defies the international community. Just saying that you don't support keeping him doesn't make it so.

The ends do not justify the means. International law - law the U.S. helped to fashion - is being violated.

Which is only significant when the US is on the carpet. No, 12 years and 17 toothless resolutions don't add up to anything at all.

And you so endearingly claim not to support Saddam.


Hey, don't accept my word for it, how about the words of George Bush Sr., from article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-605441,00.html:

In an ominous warning for his son, Mr Bush Sr said that he would have been able to achieve nothing if he had jeopardised future relations by ignoring the UN. “The Madrid conference would never have happened if the international coalition that fought together in Desert Storm had exceeded the UN mandate and gone on its own into Baghdad after Saddam and his forces.”

I submit that he is wrong. His blind observance of the UN allowed Saddam to stay in power, a fact that hawks and doves agree was a mistake that has led us to this point in history.

Pardon me if I file your "facts" in the propaganda drawer.

[tedly]

Originally posted by Tricky
Less than 48 hours. The clock ticks. You are a resident of Baghdad. You have lived there all your life and knew it when the madman was not in office. Your family is all there. You are not wealthy, but you make enough to stay alive. You watch the clock tick.

You look into the faces of your family with the ultimate sadness of knowing you are probably seeing them for the last day. You hope none of them will suffer long. You embrace each one. You look at the clock. Tick tick tick tick......

Swahili proverb - When elephants fight, only the grass suffers

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Jocko


Of course it doesn't, because it's irrelevant. The UN mandates you prize so highly have been violated day in and day out by Saddam since 1991. We have had the authority to act since the day after the surrender, and 9-11 was a wake-up call that apparently never made it out to your little burg.

etc. etc.



You didn't even come close to countering a single point during your twisted "analysis" of my post. I'll return to my burg now.

[Barkhorn1x]

Originally posted by LukeT
It seems to be the universal opinion on here that the Elite (Special?) Republican Guard is going to put up a big fight in Baghdad.

I am going to break that unanimity (sp?) and say they probably will not.

I have stated in the past that the RG won't fight that hard - in fact they will most likely put up a token resistance and then join the rest of the Iraqi Army in the POW pens.

Aren't they fanatics dedicated to SH to death do them part?

No way, because;
1. SH rules by fear and intimidation - he is not one to motivate by example, he has NO military abilities that one could respect and he has no charisma (even Hitler had charisma). The RG realize that any one of them could end up in a torture cell at any time - this is not the type of mindset that motivates one to give all to the cause against a tough and determined enemy.
2. They're all about the perks - once it is clear that SH is going down the only rational decision will be to give up and try to salvage their sorry hides for the post war phase.

What about the Secret Police forces you ask?

History abounds w/ examples of what happens to these thugs when things come unglued - Romania redux is a likely outcome.

Of course, the specter of Chemical and Bio weapons clouds this rosy picture. Here's hoping that the Iraqi leadership cares more about their own lives than they do about following the "Gottendamerung" orders of desperate dictator.

Barkhorn.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by DrChinese


You didn't even come close to countering a single point during your twisted "analysis" of my post. I'll return to my burg now.

Nice parry. All I did was point out that the events of 9-11 neither add nor detract from the legitimacy of the US making good on what the UN has been mumbling about for over 12 years.

You're not going back to your burg- you're headed back to your planet.

Five hours until the deadline. What day/time do you think the war will start?

I will say it will promptly start the moment the deadline passes. Can't take the chance Saddam will leave after the deadline and throw a monkey wrench in our invasion plans.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by LukeT
Five hours until the deadline. What day/time do you think the war will start?

I will say it will promptly start the moment the deadline passes. Can't take the chance Saddam will leave after the deadline and throw a monkey wrench in our invasion plans.
Our invasion goes ahead despite what Saddam does. Mr. Bush's recent address states that U.S. troops are going to invade Iraq regardless of what Saddam does vis-a-vis his deadline. This was rather glossed over by Mr. B, since it's more dramatic and likely to get more headlines if he appears to be giving Saddam one last chance to save his country from invasion. If Saddam skips town before the deadline, then it appears that the troops go in as well-armed weapons inspectors.

[Tmy]

What about this situation. Allies role thru Iraq, have Baghadad surrounded. Saddam cries uncle, says he'll take exile at this point.

Does Bush accept? Pro: Thousands of lives spared from the messy extraction of Saddam out of the city.

Cons: Saddam gets away, without paying forhis crimes.

Id say let him go. As long as hes out of the way.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Tricky
Less than 48 hours. Saddam will not let
you into his titanium-walled bunker.
You assume he will wait out the war in Iraq.
I'd say his clones or impersonators will wait,
but he's probably on Mediterranean cruse for
a year or two two wait out the war before
comming back. Unless he's stupid. It's possible.
Stupidity and political power, hm....

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by LukeT
Anything is possible.
Oh, I get it now! The axis of evil.
The United States invades Iraq, North Korea launches nukes
but the head the wrong way. Instead of destroying the west
coast, they land in Isreal destroying an annoying old city with
a J in it's name. The Isrealies lauch, not seing anything from
Iraq assume Iran has launched the missles and attacks igniting
a holy war involving some thrity seven nations.

P.S. Is this what your looking for?

[Bluegill]

Originally posted by LukeT
It seems to be the universal opinion on here that the Elite (Special?) Republican Guard is going to put up a big fight in Baghdad.

I am going to break that unanimity (sp?) and say they probably will not.

Once we have the entire city surrounded, and have taken the airport, and the remaining troops know the entire rest of the army has surrendered and are being well-fed and cared for, their will will be broken. All resistance would lead to is the destruction of Baghdad.

I just don't see door-to-door fighting happening.

I agree with you. I think there will be some "inner circle" types in command of a few units that will put up a fight around Baghdad, but I think it will be pretty limited.

Just to go against the common opinion here, I'll predict that Iraqi troops won't use and chemical or bio weapons. U.S. warplanes or special forces will hit any units they think have them, and units that escape that initial onslaught will refuse to use the chemical weapons because they know it will just make things worse for them. While I do think there are some chemical or bio weapons in the hands of the Iraqi military, I also doubt there are as many as some fear.

Iraqi soldiers will come out with guns over their heads, and tell advancing allied forces, "Yeah, we've got a few. We'll gladly show you if you don't shoot!"

[patnray]

A few notes on this thread:

Sadam DOES believe he won the Gulf war. He often reminds the Iraqis that they turned back the Americans and kept them from invading Iraq. And he never intended to keep Kuwait anyway (he says)...

He may already have left Iraq, or at least be out of Baghdad and ready to flee. And if captured, he may claim he is just one of his "doubles"...

It is hard to predict what will happen within Iraq after the war. Regional fighting is a real possiblity. I don't think Iran or Turkey will make any incursions, at least not while there is a large US presence. There is a large bureaucracy and privledged class. No telling where their loyalties will lie if they lose their priveledges. Finally, it is possible that many people with anti-US sentiments may temporarily go into hiding and wage guerilla raids on US forces after the main hostilities are over...

[DrBenway]

Ok, I'll play psychic:

A mobile SCUD out in the desert aims a chemical warhead into the path of the invading army.

Saddam escapes quietly into Saudi Arabia. Saudi fighters sympathetic to al Qaeda assist in his flight. Although not fond of Saddam, they view his survival as potentially useful to their cause. At the very least, keeping him alive proves that the US is not all-powerful.

A brief period of chaotic fighting around Bagdad is quickly squelched.

Several oil wells are blown tonight.

Time's Up!

If you factor in flight time, the U.S. was probably launching its cruise missiles while I was writing that last post.

"Target of opportunity."

Wouldn't it be cool if Saddam was taken out with the first shots?