Bush Speech Thread

[Sloth]

Originally posted by Sava


I hope this war goes quick, and ends with minimal casualties. Actually, I hope there are only 3 casualties. Saddam and his dumbass sons. Hope springs' eternal I suppose

Can I add a forth one? If the Italian governement goes down (as now seem possible) ....would be a welcome casualty of the war.

[Sava]

What's wrong with the Italian government? (forgive me I'm an ignorant American )

[Sloth]

It's the worst government of the West, they are incompetent crooks....

[Inverse Icarus]

did they sign up on the wrong side of a war again?

sigh... will they ever learn?

[SlowwHand]

[Spiffor]

I don't know if there will be war or not if Saddam leaves. I'm oriented towards thinking there will be no war, but only some localized clashes with the few troops that'll remain loyal to Saddam, and some radical Kurds / Shiites.

If Saddam leaves, the US and the Bushies would have reached almost all its objectives :
- getting rid of the former puppet regime to install a new one
- legitimizing this whole charade, Bush would earn a huge support in the US population
- prove that the US still is the boss
- have a reliable supply of oil in prediction of the incoming tensions with Saudi Arabia (must finish these massive financing to terrorists)
- prove the chickenhawks were right, and that a big gun is more efficient than words.


However, two goals would have been left unfulfilled :
- explicitely showing the superiority of the US army on the field
- Have a full scale training, with the chance it provides to develop new strategies, and to see how those already thought are working : you rarely have the opportunity to wage a real war against a harmless enemy.

For these last two reasons, it is possible the Hawks find another pretext to declare war anyway, but that would be terrible for their image even among the US population and expansive, so it is unlikely.

However, it is obvious the US is going to invade. This here post was wondering if the US would invade all guns blazing or not, if Saddam leaves.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
However, two goals would have been left unfulfilled :
- explicitely showing the superiority of the US army on the field

I thought that was already unquestioned.

[SlowwHand]

What's heartening is an interview last night on Nightline.
A U.S. Ranger commander made note that Iraq couldn't compare with U.S./Brits as an army; but individually, the Iraqi's could still inflict casualties.
With that recognition, the Commander would take nothing for granted, would not allow his men to be arrogant, and that his troops would go full bore.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I don't know if there will be war or not if Saddam leaves. I'm oriented towards thinking there will be no war, but only some localized clashes with the few troops that'll remain loyal to Saddam, and some radical Kurds / Shiites.

If Saddam leaves, the US and the Bushies would have reached almost all its objectives :
- getting rid of the former puppet regime to install a new one
- legitimizing this whole charade, Bush would earn a huge support in the US population
- prove that the US still is the boss
- have a reliable supply of oil in prediction of the incoming tensions with Saudi Arabia (must finish these massive financing to terrorists)
- prove the chickenhawks were right, and that a big gun is more efficient than words.


However, two goals would have been left unfulfilled :
- explicitely showing the superiority of the US army on the field
- Have a full scale training, with the chance it provides to develop new strategies, and to see how those already thought are working : you rarely have the opportunity to wage a real war against a harmless enemy.

For these last two reasons, it is possible the Hawks find another pretext to declare war anyway, but that would be terrible for their image even among the US population and expansive, so it is unlikely.

However, it is obvious the US is going to invade. This here post was wondering if the US would invade all guns blazing or not, if Saddam leaves.

You say that you envision a few clashes..why? Who keeps power after Saddam and his boys leave? the same Baathist insiders that have been there since he came to power and his fellow tribesmen? The same security operatives responsible for all the exectuions and murders. The same Republican Guard units that crushed the rebellions? Perhaps the Shia's and Kurds would have a different view. we know that fi the Kurds made a dash for Kirkut and Mosul Turkey would invade. The Iranians would certainly try to push for their candidates, and the opposition groups would return to each others throats.

US troops will enter Iraq one way or another, and which would be messier and more deadly for Iraqi civilians could be arguable.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Quote:

- explicitely showing the superiority of the US army on the field

I thought that was already unquestioned.

Enemies of the US might hope guerilla tactics would have some efficiency. The US superiority is granted on paper, but the world hasn't seen an American territorial invasion at large scale in decades : I don't call Haiti and the likes a "large scale", Irak1 / Serbia weren't invasions, and Afghani ground troops were the real ground army of the US in Afghanistan. The last real invasion on large scale, IIRC, was Vietnam, which ended up in disadter for the US despite outstanding tech superiority.
It may be time for the US to prove Vietnam is no longer a thing of the present.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Enemies of the US might hope guerilla tactics would have some efficiency.

They can look at the Afghanistan situation as it stands now to find that out.

[DuncanK]

I think if Saddam leaves that the US will just attack Iran real quick.

[Japher]

Bush speech: I think the camera angle was bad, he looked like a little boy asking for a cookie.

His msg was clear though.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DuncanK
I think if Saddam leaves that the US will just attack Iran real quick.

It'd be best if we waiting until April 1 to do that.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by GePap
You say that you envision a few clashes..why? Who keeps power after Saddam and his boys leave? the same Baathist insiders that have been there since he came to power and his fellow tribesmen? The same security operatives responsible for all the exectuions and murders. The same Republican Guard units that crushed the rebellions? Perhaps the Shia's and Kurds would have a different view. we know that fi the Kurds made a dash for Kirkut and Mosul Turkey would invade. The Iranians would certainly try to push for their candidates, and the opposition groups would return to each others throats.

US troops will enter Iraq one way or another, and which would be messier and more deadly for Iraqi civilians could be arguable.

I think most people will be busy with their survival, and will try to please the absolutely dominant US (which will occupy the territory no matter what). Fights between factions will begin once the US chooses which faction will lead the puppet regime, and once it leaves a toothless UN monitoring the transition.
And we'll hear how the UN botched things

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

They can look at the Afghanistan situation as it stands now to find that out.

Except for spec-ops and their support, were there any ground troops from America or from a western ally in Afghanistan ?
The logics of a warlord and of an American strategist is very different. The American must avoid losses at all costs for PR reasons, and there is no aim at territorial conquest, making the stake less important for the American strategist (a minor asset in US power) than for the warlord (the very territory he'll exert his domination).

[DuncanK]

There is a show on TV here called Profiles. It shows individuals in the military in Afgahnistan. I think its funded by the military, but I was watching it the other day. It's kind of like the show 'Cops.' I don't know if you Europeans have something like this.

Anyway, they were profiling this soldier who had some kind of police duty in Afgahnistan. Some guys highjacked some fuel trucks and he and the group had to retrieve them and get the guys who did it. They were very successfull and they got the regional chieftan to turn over the highjackers. The Afgahns were very cooperative. The guy they were profiling said that the Afgahns were very cooperative with them in general because they appreciated that the US was bringing order to their country.

I know that this is all propaganda, but maybe there is something to it.

[SlowwHand]

Were they required?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kramerman



really International law is a joke, and everyone knows it. People just use it to their adavntage and their advasaries disadvantage (ie the UN). The only real law in the current world society of nation states is the law of the jungle, unfortunately.

We kicked Saddam's ass in '91, he agreed to certain conditions. Hes failed those agreences, and instead of kicking his ass immediately, like we should have, we have given him several years. The bastard's time is now (finally) up

Kman

Kman, I was thinking the same thing as you what you just said. According to the news reports last night, Saddam was given a 45 days to disarmin 1991. He failed to "fully" cooperate. This led to 12 years of cat and mouse games in this "benign" dictator. I believe Bush still had the bulk of the forces in place at the 45 day deadline. He could have resumed the hostilities then there. He should have. I wonder why he didn't?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Were they required?

?

Is this for me?

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by DuncanK


?

Is this for me?

No. Apologies.
It was in response to Spiffor, and his analogy of troops used in Afganistan.

[DuncanK]

Slowwhand,

Yes, they were required to cooperate. If the chieftan wouldn't have handed over the highjackers there would have been trouble for him I think.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by SlowwHand


No. Apologies.
It was in response to Spiffor, and his analogy of troops used in Afganistan.

k

[jolair]

Originally posted by Sloth
It's the worst government of the West, they are incompetent crooks....

You are wrong. I think you forget spanish goverment.

Berlusca Giu
Aznar

[Ellestar]

Well, maybe i was wrong in my post (in the part about Libya), but we reading hugely different reports about same confilcts. This link (1) http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...89/hurley.html shows it pretty good (compare 8 and 9 paragraphs).

Lord Merciless
What are you talking about? The truth is s that we delivered 2 bombs into Khadafi's bedrooms, and he has been quiet since then.
Adn killed some innocent citisens http://www.iwar.org.uk/cyberterror/r...e/response.htm - search for 'Operation ELDORADO CANYON'

Iraqis had even more your Russian made SAMs back in 1991, we mopped floor with them.
Maybe, but USA used guided missiles. Old SAMs can't shoot down guided missiles.

And T72s, supposedly advanced Russian MBTs, were blewn to pieces like target practices. We didn't lose a single M1.
Well, i don't heared about any tank battles, assault chopters of course can destroy T72 - that's main target of assault chopters, and tanks can't retalliate. T72 don't had 'Arena' defence complex (btw this is 2nd Russian defence compex, and USA don't have one).

Finally, you guys struggled so badly and are still struggling against the pathetic Chechens. You need to check your own past military records before bragging about how "great" Russia's military is.

Oh guy you cool! Americans committed some major genocide (killed almost all native american citizens). Well, i agree with you that genocide is the most efficient way to deal with revolting native population.

It's hard to win a civil war with army. Do USA army stopped 11 september? No. So, it's hard to win a war without genocide then you have 'peaceful citizens' at daytime and 'terrorists' at nights. I wish you to meet same doom in Iraq - this is the only way how Iraq can mange to defend, and if this happens we'll see how good USA military is.

[Sava]

Is 'Poly being invaded by DL's?

Yeah, during the first Gulf War... the US didn't lose a single tank to enemy fire. FF though, well that's a different story.

[SlowwHand]

Your sense humor is lacking, Sava.

[Sava]

I know...

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
[About American ground troops in Afghanistan] Were they required?

No, I didn't question that. I wanted to point out the difference between the Afghani campaign and Gulf War II. GW2 is an almost purely American war, where the only significant ally in the field will be the UK (I doubt Jordanian or Saudian troops will ever fight).
It is the first time in decades the Americans will wage a ground invasion on a large territory almost alone, and it is an opportunity to show to everybody they have really not even a marginal chance if the US decides to invade them.

[Ellestar]

MichaeltheGreat
The Libyan SAM's at the time (most of the planet has ex-Soviet SAMs, and against modern aircraft, only the SA-10 is even vaguely worth a ****
But SA-10 is better than Patriot.

Lord Merciless
More about the "prowess" of Soviet military hardware:
In the 1982 war between Syria and Israel, Israel destroyed 86 Syrian MIGs, while only losing one F-16.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...89/hurley.html

Well 4-th generation air-superiority fighters vs old 2-3th generation fighters with huge difference of radar detection range and autoaim missiles. It's hard to lose then enemy can't even detect you and strike back.

But see 2nd paragraph in same link - how good is Russian military hardware with comparable tech (i mean same years techs was researched).