USA vs. IRAQ: part III (Official Iraq thread)

I am tired of reading the Pro-war rally in this board

I think bush is not going to back down, and there will be a war without the UN resolution.

What I think will be interesting is the aftermath... While I have no doubts US will win, I predict a backlash against the Iraq war, much the same like Vietnam.

BTW, I was watching cowboy movies last night ( there is nothing else on), and can't help to think that the parody they portrayed for bush ( AKA cowboy diplomacy) rings true bell. In fact, I can used the parody to some of the poster in this board... Scary, actually...


JFT: I will take your word that there will be only 3,000 civilians killed.

 

JFT: I will take your word that there will be only 3,000 civilians killed. ( Gosh, I almost fell of laughing reading this line.. )

That's the estimate that myself and many of my close friends (most of whom work for the military) have come up with.

 

That's the estimate that myself and many of my close friends (most of whom work for the military) have come up with.

Multiplying your estimate with 100 might work better.

 

A factor of 100 is a bit extreme, but just 3000 civilian casualties isn't realistic--unless that number is the number of US-inflicted casualties. I can believe that, though I think it will probably be a little higher. But if Hussein gets it into his head to gas the Iraqi people, we won't be able to prevent that, and civilian casualties will soar.

 

No where near that many will die. Even if we have to get into Urban warfare, the U.S. Army can handle it. Just look at Somalia. The only reason 18 Americans died in that was because Clinton wouldn't allow Spectre gunships to be sent. If there had been, no Americans would have died.

That's what'll happen in Baghdad.

EDIT: I'm off to class, so don't get to far ahead.

 

JFT: Starfire wrote: but just 3000 civilian casualties isn't realistic--unless that number is the number of US-inflicted casualties.

IT is the US inflicted casualties.. WITHOUT tanks and bombs. In Somalia, the civilian casualties ranged from 4,000 to 5,000 in a span of 2 days. Iraq has population density higher than Afghanistan, so I predicted Snorr Stulsson number to be the right one.

 

"It's incredible," a senior diplomat from a swing-vote Security Council nation told the London Times. "The report is going to have a clearly defined impact on the people who are wavering. It's a biggie."


Am I the only one who can clearly see that this report is simply propaganda? How stupid do they think people are

btw, I never said that WW2 could have been solved peacefully. I only said that WW2 could have been AVOIDED peacefully if the international community hadn't screwed up so many opportunities to stop Hitler BEFORE he invaded Poland.
Don't get me wrong - if you're attacked I see it as your right to defend yourself with military means. But that's not what we're talking about here.
I simply am amazed that the current US Administration (and many here on this board) seem to be unable to see any issue of Foreign politics that does not involve miltary force (or the threat thereof), be it Korea or Iran or Iraq or Al-Quaeda. Have we not moved on from the stone age at all?

 

"Big Blue" is a super "daisy cutter" bomb made with 21,000 lbs. of Gelled Slurry Explosive.

The normal "baby" daisy cutters, the BLU-82's which saw use in Viet Nam and Afghanistan are merely 15,000 lbs.

It was originally designed to clear helicopter-landing zones in Vietnam and works by detonating a few feet above ground level and destroying everything in its path.

It's said that military planners believe just the sight of the bomb exploding could frighten Iraqi soldiers into surrendering.

But, if you happen to be living in Iraq, this baby will be coming to a desert near you this spring.

[image=http://images.thisislondon.co.uk/v2/news/_front/bombdaisyR110303_100x110.jpg]

**KA-BOOM**

 

I simply am amazed that the current US Administration (and many here on this board) seem to be unable to see any issue of Foreign politics that does not involve miltary force (or the threat thereof), be it Korea or Iran or Iraq or Al-Quaeda. Have we not moved on from the stone age at all?

The question still stands, with all of the facts right now, how would you handle it?

 

BlueMules:

With Blix trying to cover up that drone, I think the UN is at greater risk of a backlash. That drone is the tip of the iceberg, IMO, and when the evidence is laid out (keep in mind, journalists will be going in with the combat units), I think Bush will be seen to have made a good call on this matter.

 

Repost from Slate on why casualties might be lower:

Subsequent American air campaigns have relied increasingly on smart weapons. In Kosovo, about half the ordnance dropped was precision-guided; by Afghanistan, about two-thirds was; if Iraq is attacked again, about 90 percent of bombs are expected to be smart. Use of precision munitions is increasing in part because the falling price of electronics has made this class of weapons one line-item in the Pentagon budget that's getting cheaper. As recently as the Gulf War, smart munitions cost $250,000 to $1 million apiece; the new smart bomb that debuted in Afghanistan, called JDAM, costs around $20,000. While getting cheaper, smart munitions have also gotten more effective. According to Pentagon analysis, about 80 percent of smart bombs struck within a few yards of their aim points during the Afghan conflict, dramatically better accuracy than in any prior air campaign.

Equally significant but less well understood is that new precision munitions are used in different tactical ways. The JDAM bomb is designed to fall from high altitude, above the range of anti-aircraft missiles and artillery, yet strike more precisely than previous smart munitions delivered by harrowing low-altitude runs. This and similar new weapons are self-guided by signals from the very accurate Global Positioning System. Self-guidance eliminates the need for the pilot of the plane launching the smart bomb to lay eyes on the target or "paint" the aim point with lasers. Using the new self-guided smart ordnance in Afghanistan, U.S. forces conducted the first high-altitude precision strikes in military history. They will do the same again if Iraq must be attacked again, raining down extremely precise bombs from planes that defenders may never even see.

The ability to strike accurately from high altitude appears finally to fulfill decades of overstated promises about precision bombing. This new ability further means a significant percentage of ordnance can be borne to targets via heavy bombers with entire racks of bombs, rather than aboard fighter-bombers that typically bear two air-to-ground munitions per flight. Lots of smart bombs aboard heavy bombers means the bombing punch can come fast and furious, rather than at the drip-drip-drip pace of the Gulf War.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers told reporters yesterday that the U.S. planned to "shock" Iraq into a quick surrender. Military planners speak of "shocking" an opponent in the early hours of an assault, as blitzkrieg tactics shocked the French army into collapse in 1940. Air warfare has imposed much sorrow and destruction but never itself stunned a nation into quick capitulation. In 1991, bombs came gradually to Iraq and often missed; Iraqi planners may be expecting a repeat performance. If instead large numbers of bombs fall very precisely during the first nights of an attack, the Iraqi professional military may be stunned into suing for peace.

And, as always, my caveat is that Gregg Easterbrook is a) one of the smartest reporters on the Web and b) not a hawk.

 

War is the easy way out. It's a quick fix. It's just an old solution that has proven to have limited success.

If we plan to fight the war on Terror and the war on Iraq only with military action, we are doomed to fail.

Do all of you really believe it will end with the war against Iraq? Preemptive wars mean that we will be stuck in a perpetual cycle of war. President Bush is a fool if he thinks that War will really stop any sort of violence or hatred against us, it will most likely increase terrorists resolve to kill us.

War is not the answer, only love can conquer hate. I'm not saying I have the solution (aside from more diplomacy, which is working, however slowly), but we have to come up with a better way than war. Give Peace a Chance. Everyone says we have, but why are we SO insistant on going to war?

Why is NOW so important? It's arbitrary, it's a political move, and it's just a pretext to invade Iraq. Anyone in the government who tells you we are fighting this war FOR THE IRAQI PEOPLE is a fool or a liar.

 

Am I the only one who can clearly see that this report is simply propaganda? How stupid do they think people are

The report is from the UN weapons inspectors themselves. They discovered undeclared hardware that were created for the use of weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological). The two weapons are a type of cluster bomb fitted to accept chemical and/or biological components, and a unmanned drone aircraft fitted for the same reason.

How exactly is this only propaganda and/or insignificant? We have undeclared vehicles for the distribution of WMD, don't you think that is a big development? Especially since Blix buried the fact in his 173 page report?

 

Obi-Wan McCartney -- are you familiar with the "strong horse" theory?

EDIT: I simply am amazed that the current US Administration (and many here on this board) seem to be unable to see any issue of Foreign politics that does not involve miltary force (or the threat thereof), be it Korea or Iran or Iraq or Al-Quaeda. Have we not moved on from the stone age at all?

I'm quite for diplomacy in North Korea -- they haven't run out of chances yet. Nor do they have any UN Resolutions against them the way Iraq does, that I am aware of.

 

dp4m: nice post from the Tuesday Morning Quarterback

As a side note, I find 3,000 to be a low number. Maybe a factor or 2 or 3...and don't discount the propaganda that will come from both sides in the opening hours and days of conflict.

 

I'm not saying I have the solution (aside from more diplomacy, which is working, however slowly), but we have to come up with a better way than war. Give Peace a Chance. Everyone says we have, but why are we SO insistant on going to war?

The only reason diplomacy is working even in the slightest is because of the imminent threat of force. Once that threat is off the table no amount of diplomacy will work, we saw that in the 90's.

By the way, I think you have some good lyrics for a song.

 

My favorite part of this whole mess is the fact that while Bush's finger is hovering over the "LAUNCH IRAQ INVASION" button, Iraq's next door neighbor Saudi Arabia basically created Al Quaida, while its other next door neighbor, Iran, is in the advanced stages of nuclear weapons development. Talk about misplaced priorities.

 

Obi-Wan McCartney...
"Do all of you really believe it will end with the war against Iraq? Preemptive wars mean that we will be stuck in a perpetual cycle of war. President Bush is a fool if he thinks that War will really stop any sort of violence or hatred against us, it will most likely increase terrorists resolve to kill us."

There is no preemptive war in Iraq. Iraq began a preemptive strike and invasion of Kuwait which concluded in Iraq's unconditional surrender and terms of a cease-fire.

Iraq broke those terms, and hence nullified the cease-fire.

We are simply accomodating their wishes to remove the cease-fire.

To somehow call this latest Iraq situation a new war is erroneous.

 

As a side note, I find 3,000 to be a low number. Maybe a factor or 2 or 3...and don't discount the propaganda that will come from both sides in the opening hours and days of conflict.

My fear is that Hussein will kill his own people on his way down to discredit the US forces and put a halt to the invasion. Hopefully the embedded journalists will be able to keep anything like this from happening.

 

dp4m: nice post from the Tuesday Morning Quarterback

I totally love a reporter that can do football and policy-wonk all at the same time. And I meant that in the completely hetero-sense...

My fear is that Hussein will kill his own people on his way down to discredit the US forces and put a halt to the invasion. Hopefully the embedded journalists will be able to keep anything like this from happening.

Right, but if the UN Inspectors can find the truth in Jenin (with MUCH more pressure on them to discover an Israeli "massacre" surrounded by Palestinians) I'm at least confident in their ability to discover the truth of such allegations in Iraq, were they to occur.

Actually, interesting question -- why are they so good at finding the truth about human rights violations but not weapons inspections?

 

That is a legit concern (I'm sure you saw the same news story I did about the uniforms). One endgame scenario for him is if bombing stops on account of domestic pressure within the west, while he is hiding somewhere.

 

Genghis, that's just military rhetoric to justify our preemptive strike. Everyone knows that, don't pretend.

 

My favorite part of this whole mess is the fact that while Bush's finger is hovering over the "LAUNCH IRAQ INVASION" button, Iraq's next door neighbor Saudi Arabia basically created Al Quaida, while its other next door neighbor, Iran, is in the advanced stages of nuclear weapons development. Talk about misplaced priorities.

I'm sure some of the idealists in the administration are hoping that an eventual prosperous democratic (or federation) Iraq will inspire the rest of the Arab world to follow suit. If not the governments then at least the people in the streets. How else do you combat the oppressive governments (who are friends to your face, but stab you in the back to their people) except through their people? It probably has a very small chance of working, but will be great if it does.

 

It'll be like Governor Vrox and the Battle of Mandalore.

Except the Iraqis don't happen to have their own Janx Ferro with them.

 

No matter what happens, no matter how few or many Iraqi civilians are killed, it will be a massive public relations disaster for the U.S. in the short term. Foreign journalists are not going to hold back, and while there will be plenty of censoring in the U.S., you can be sure everyone else around the world is going to see the photos.

If Saddam kills 100,000 of his own civilians with mustard gas, then in the eyes of the world - it's the U.S.'s fault for launching the invasion knowing what the costs would be for the people of Iraq. Do you think the people of Iraq are going to thank America for that? "Thanks for unleashing Saddam on us."