... post your predictions!

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

(without making any jokes about your I'm sure accidental typo)

Oh yeah. Bush has too much invested in this politically and militarily (<100,000 troops and an extra 50K on the move is more or less critical mass in terms of the point of no return) to the point where to say no would lead to a revolt within the administration.

And for those who feel the change in Colin Powell's rhetoric is the sure sign of war (for me, we hit the point of no return in August of last year) this article by Robert Novak (the best conservative columnist, IMHO) is quite interesting.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/nova...dt-novak27.html

Oy, it looks like I misunderstood the question. So here's my answer:

I don't think I'm going out on a limb by saying the United States, Great Britain, a bunch of cajoled (and oddly conservative) Western European leaders and the hegemonic powerhouse known as Bulgaria will win.

Casualities will, if you're an optimist be around 500-1000 (Gulf War claimed about 150). Granted the Iraqi army is (at least it should be) reduced in numbers from what it was during Desert Storm, but an actual ground invasion is always more costly than a beatback war. Civilian casualites would be about 25,000 or so (Desert Storm claimed about 15,000) at least.

But if the hawks are proven to be wrong (i.e the military stands firm, there is significant civilian resistance and subsequent Mogadishuesque house to house warfare, so called smart bombs aren't so smart; least of all, God forbid, Saddam does indeed unleash Weapons of Mass Destruction) than this could in fact become another Vietname, or much worse.

That is to say nothing of the significant economic, it still is the economy stupid, costs of the inevitable occupation(especially if there is no significant mulitlateral action to help with "nation building", Iraqi infrastructre destroyed, A true rousing of anti-american sentiment in Arab world leading to more terror attacks) But, if a clear coherent case is made that Iraq poses an imminent threat and that all attempts at a peaceful resolution have fallen by the wayside (I will reserve judgement until February 5th at the earliest) I guess we simply will have to do what we have to do.

Last edited by IronDragon on Jan-30-2003 at 07:46

Predictions on what? Who will win? Obviously US, but it will be much tricker than the gulf war.

The gulf war was fought in the desert, where the most powerful army wins easily. However, if America attacks, Saddam will bring the war into his cities and use his tight, compact allies to trap and fight the US military.

Kinda like what happened in Black hawk down...

the tricky thing about going to war with iraq, is that saddam promises that if we do attack them, he will destroy all of the oil wells like he did in the gulf war. Currently, he is rigging all of the oil wells (approximately 1500) with explosives in case the war breaks out. Why is this bad? If this happens, the oil destruction will be 20 times greater than the exxon spill and will cost approximately 40 billion dollars to clean up. This man is evil.

___________________
When you start to criticize the times you live in, your time is over. ~Karl Lagerfeld

"you ought never to suffer your designs to be crossed in order to avoid war, since war is not so to be avoided, but is only deferred to your disadvantage."

Machiavelli - from The Prince, chapter 3, written in 1513

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

Well, I honestly think that there is more to the build up than just Iraq. I think Iraq had given the Bush Administration the perfect excuse to beef up US Military presence in the region (which I feel is the ultimate goal). This will give them the opportunity to react swiftly to any threat from that region (which at this time is the only real threat to our national security).

predictions heh....

they wont get asshole hussein. just like they didnt get osama. on purpose of course, whatever that purpose is.

>JM<

Just watching NewsNight on CNN and there's a report about Iraq's ability (or lack thereof) of ability to handle the casualties a war would cause. Iraq says it would be able to cope. That means they won't.
That means 800 cruise missles on Baghdad in 2 days causes HUGE (don't even want to dare speculate) casualities.

But then again, wouldn't be anything worse than what Saddam has done but kind of makes you think.

President Bush is after Saddam Hussien To take revenge for the attempt on his father, mother and brothers lives when they visited Kuwait city in 1993 by Iraqi inteligence.

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy "you ought never to suffer your designs to be crossed in order to avoid war, since war is not so to be avoided, but is only deferred to your disadvantage." Machiavelli - from The Prince, chapter 3, written in 1513

so you're quoting a philosopher from the 16th century about the current Iraqi situation? great
Can't quote anyone fromt his day and age with any credibility that supports a war? thought not

quote:

Originally posted by Az so you're quoting a philosopher from the 16th century about the current Iraqi situation? great Can't quote anyone fromt his day and age with any credibility that supports a war? thought not

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

quote:

Originally posted by guetag Saddam Hussein's support of terror, and links with Al-Qaeda, as well as other terror organizations, coupled with the unconventional weapons in his possession, are a strategic threat to the entire free world

Saddam Hussein has no links with Al Qaeda, and I don't see any proof that he has unconventional weapons in his possession...... and compared to places like North Korea, India, Pakistan, Israel etc... he's an absolute nobody......