What is your worst case scenario when the war begins? - Page 2

Ramo · March 12, 2003, 03:17

Quote:

aw, c'mon, i thought you liked anarchy?

That's right. The war will lead to authority and tyranny, so no wonder you support it.

Quote:

I don't like the precedent the war sets up - completely ignoring the UN.

It doesn't make much of a difference. The UN had never been able to constrain the actions of the US to a significant degree anyways.

Urban Ranger · March 12, 2003, 07:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
I usually stick to CNB, though, for precisely this reason...

Same here

Az · March 12, 2003, 08:05

A realistic worst case scenario:

A bio-chem attack on US forces.
The US still win the war, but Iran enters Shia regions. fighting errupts between Iran and the US.
A revolution in an muslim country.

I don't think we've got the Ingredients for WWIII, unless pakistan is jeopradised.

Richelieu · March 12, 2003, 08:20

US will attack without a UN mandate and it will be bloodier than they think, but not much more than the first gulf war.
Europe - China - Russia will cry at the UN, maybe even try to get economical sanctions against the US but will fail. Growing rift between US and the rest of the world.
The Muslim world will fall even deeper in anti US/Israel mode. Terrorist attacks against US interest around the world will be on the rise.
Bush admin. will try and bankrupt - shutdown - the UN and may succeed.

TheStinger · March 12, 2003, 08:22

Saudi has a revolution and cuts off all oil supplies, US invades Saudi. **** hits fan

Lincoln · March 12, 2003, 08:59

I hope none of this stuff really happens. I am going to save this thread because some of it may well take place. Anyone who thinks this war (and the aftermath)will be a picnic, I think, is sadly mistaken. Ideally the obvious threat of war will accomplish the purpose without firing a shot. The threat of war has already made it possible for the inspectors to return. And even Rumsfield said that the goal is to NOT go to war. I hope that goal is reached. We are treading on quicksand.

KrazyHorse · March 12, 2003, 09:02

Quote:

And even Rumsfield said that the goal is to NOT go to war

I don't believe them when they say that. I get the feeling that anything Saddam did short of abdicating wasn't enough for them. They've paid a lot for taking the route they took, and I think that even they could have accomplished as much as they have with less effort and cost.

Immortal Wombat · March 12, 2003, 09:08

Blair fails to resign.

Sloth · March 12, 2003, 09:10

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Realisitc worst case scenerios?

Iraq blows the oil fields, Kurds and Turks fight each other in northern Iraq, with the Iranians allowing more third parties in. Fighting in Baghdad bogs down, leading to massive civilian casualties. Massive anti-Us protests world-wide, massive anti-Us demonstratiuons world wide, especially in the ME. Both Israel and NK exploit the time to do something "unwise". Tony Blair kicked out of power due to disasters in the ground. US eventually wins, but the whole area is in an uproar.

The only good part of this view: Bush precidency ends Jan 2005.

As very often happens I agree completely with GePap

KrazyHorse · March 12, 2003, 09:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Blair fails to resign.

So, exactly when is the rioting set to begin?

Immortal Wombat · March 12, 2003, 09:13

Soon as we go to war without a second resolution. I would imagine.

But in general the Brits are too lazy to do anything about it. We'll write strongly worded letters to our MPs, b!tch about it in the pub, and then forget it all.

C0ckney · March 12, 2003, 09:14

i can't really imagine the war itself being that hard, but the post-war situation could give rise to all sorts of worst case scenarios, especially with the turks and the kurds.

KrazyHorse · March 12, 2003, 09:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
Soon as we go to war without a second resolution. I would imagine.

But in general the Brits are too lazy to do anything about it. We'll write strongly worded letters to our MPs, b!tch about it in the pub, and then forget it all.

What if I cobble together a fake recording of Blair insulting British soccer prowess or suggesting that he's actually made love (to a woman)?

Immortal Wombat · March 12, 2003, 09:25

Rather than Cherie you mean?

nah, I doubt even that would work. That'd get him voted out for sure, but our sporting abilities are a national joke anyway. We'd just laugh at him. Some more.

It seems the only way to get us really riled up at the moment is to suggest going to war...

Solly · March 12, 2003, 09:33

People don't really care about the war.

Immortal Wombat · March 12, 2003, 09:42

The best way of all to get us angry is to use huge signatures that are too long to ignore, and too boring to read.

Solly · March 12, 2003, 09:58

Ah, right.

Immortal Wombat · March 12, 2003, 10:01

Enough people cared enough to go on the march...

Solly · March 12, 2003, 10:05

Yeah, and they hardly looked annoyed. It was just a day out for them, like going shopping for rebellious Fcuk clothes.

Chemical Ollie · March 12, 2003, 17:41

Best case:

A Republican Guard general makes a military coupe and siezes temporary power. He immediately invites UN to organize democratic elections, hands over Saddam to an international tribunal and shows all hidden secrets to the weapon inspectors. Iraqi oil enters the world market, the price of crude oil drops significantly and the new government is spending the oil income on education and healthcare. The US/UK troops can go home without a single shot fired, and Iraq becomes a prosperous democracy

Worst case:

US invades without UN support. Iraq's troops have learnt their lesson from the last war and fortify themselfes in the cities instead of the desert. There are fierce urban warfare with heavy casualties on both sides. The trigger-happy Americans use massive bombing and artillery to get rid of enemy soldiers hiding among civilians, causing extreme colateral damage. Saddam retaliates by sending Scuds full of poison gas and germs on Tel Aviv. Patriot missiles hit most of them, but with the ironic effect that the fallout area just increases. Israel goes nuclear on Bagdad, despite US warnings, and even before US has evacuated (which they wouldn't do). Saddam and most of Bagdads population are killed by the nukes, along with a large part of the US ground troops, an act the US will never forgive. All Arab states declare war on Israel and US turn their back on them. US pulls out of the area. Turkey invades notherns Iraq and find themselves in total war with the Kurds. Iran invades southern Iraq. Israel eventually loose the war and is whiped out without American help . The Europeans and Americans are furious at each other and stop all transatlantic trades. Millions of muslims volonteer for terrorist service. US expels all Arabs and refuse them US entry to prevent more attacks. The world enters a cold war between EU and US with Arabs hating them both. China and India take advantage of the situation and become the new economic super-powers, which eventually helps them afford to become global rather than regional military super-powers too.

St Leo · March 12, 2003, 17:52

Worst Case Scenario: War is over quickly and it goes to Bush's head. He starts transferring troops to SK in a very blunt and obvious manner. Nuclear holocaust.

DuncanK · March 12, 2003, 18:14

Very interesting scenarios. I'm not going to make any predictions, but I think Gepap's is the most realistic worst case scenario and St. Leo's is that scariest scenario that is somewhat realistic. I don't know if they will attack NK, but I could see them attacking Iran and some other countries if they are very successfull in this war. That would be horrible. Fortunately, I don't think this war will be that cheap or that successfull.