The USA has already lost the war with Iraq

"Why would the new governement be any better then Saddam?"


Right. How is it humanly possible for the regime to be *worse* than the current one?!

 

Does the Taliban ring a bell with you? You're saying they're better then Saddam?

I'm sorry but the USA doesn't really have a great track record when it comes to removing Dictators and putting in Democratic regimes.

There's a pretty big chance that a new Governement would be almost as bad as the previous.

It's not gonna be democratic I can tell you that, so stop daydreaming about it.

 

The new government in Afghanistan is better than the Taliban so why couldn't Iraq evolve in the same way?

 

Any commanding officer who would place only one carrier in the Persian Gulf to fight a war deserved to lose this wargame. During the Desert Storm and Desert Fox, if memory serves, we placed at least three in the Gulf and Med. And that doesn't even take into account the destroyers, cruisers and other support craft for each carrier that always travel together.

 

"I'm sorry but the USA doesn't really have a great track record when it comes to removing Dictators and putting in Democratic regimes."

How many times have we TRIED to put in Democratic regimes?

Germany sure worked out great.

I don't see the problem here. Do you HONESTLY believe a new tribal democracy won't be better then Saddam?
We're just gonna put the people's fate into their own hands. What's the problem with this? I don't think we've screwed THAT up before.
In the Cold War we've supported dictators if they fought against the Russians... but I can't recall any instances of the US trying to set up a democracy and utterly failing.

Japan's still running right?

And perhaps you misunderstand. We will touch the process as little as possible, so five years from now you'll probably be saying "the US didn't set up a Democracy in Iraq. The Iraq people did".
For those of us living in the US it's the same difference. We're more concerned about results then what part we actually have in them.

 

The US does, however, according to former CIA agent John Stockwell, have an excellent record at overthrowing at least 20 functioning democracies.

The article, if all information is correct, sounds like a complete cluster!@$!... and the Pentagon apparently knows that.

What's scary is that the exercise indicates strongly that while Saddam Hussein may have had no interest in making an unprovoked attack against the US prior to Bush's idiotic suggestion of pre-emptive strikes... The Van Riper situation in the wargame clearly indicates that Saddam's potential strategy to avert a pre-emptive strike by the US is to strike the US first. By backing Saddam into a corner in an attempt to prevent war, Bush seems to have given him the perfect reason to start one.

Nice going, Dubya.

 

That wasn't arguing. It was close to inflamatory rhetoric.

What point are you trying to make when you say that the US has overthrown 20 democracies? How would this apply to our attempts to create a democracy in Iraq?
It's an inflammatory, useless comment.

?What's scary is that the exercise indicates strongly that while Saddam Hussein may have had no interest in making an unprovoked attack against the US prior to Bush's idiotic suggestion of pre-emptive strikes...?

Would you care to back this up with anything solid? You automatically assume that Saddam has no interest in hurting the US and that the only reason Iraq would WANT to attack the US is if we plan an attack first.
Let?s look at it a little more logically. Even if Saddam has no grudge against he US and no intent to hurt us, he has shown that he wants power. Badly.
Once he has nukes do you think we will be able to stop him from invading Kuwait? He?ll threaten to nuke all the oil-fields (something very possible) if we don?t back off. What do you think is going to happen? Things will get out of hand REAL fast and WWIII could be just around the corner.

?The Van Riper situation in the wargame clearly indicates that Saddam's potential strategy to avert a pre-emptive strike by the US is to strike the US first. By backing Saddam into a corner in an attempt to prevent war, Bush seems to have given him the perfect reason to start one.

Nice going, Dubya.?

Again, flagrant falsehood. Saddam cannot possibly launch a pre-emptive strike, except with a few inaccurate missiles. And our troops are too spread out for him to do any real damage with such weapons.
So since Saddam can?t launch a pre-emptive strike, accusing Bush of goading him into one is laughable.
Any troop movements, even in water-craft, are being watched closely now and any threatening movements by such troops will be met with a withering air assault. Saddam?s stuck? at least until he gets nukes and can really make some threats.

 

Great post as always GAP because so far all i see is the US being complacent, much like the Russians were with Chechnya, and we all know what happened there
-----
-Comic Book Guy

 

I agree that the battle for Baghad will be tougher for the US than 1991. Saddam has built up defencese there, and has only his loyal troops in the city. The one who will surrender are kept away from it.

Saddam at the moment has no real military power outside of his own country. However, when he gets his hands on a nuke, which he will most definately will if we do nothing, then he will have some serious power. We would never be able to remove him, as if we did anything he could just send one over to Israel, which in turn would send them right back at him, which then would incite all the Arab nations to attack Israel.

We MUST do something, but the side opposing war has no real alternate proposed. If we just sit by letting things go as they will, in ten years we won't be worring about planes hitting buildings, we will have a nuke going off in the middle of NYC.

 

Great post as always GAP because so far all i see is the US being complacent, much like the Russians were with Chechnya, and we all know what happened there


If it weren't for the U.N. and some of our 'allies' we'd probably already be in Iraq mopping up.

 

US News and World Reports had a snippet on Saddam personally shooting a man in the head in front of his advisors. The point was to show them what happens when people disobey him.


Yeah, he's not a madman...