Talk is over

[SwissMercenary]

This is my view and mine only.

It's a bad idea to go to war with Iraq.  I expect a high casualty rate due to unorthodox warfare (i.e chemical/biological).  I am NOT saying, however, that we should not do anything about Saddam.  I think that many Americans and innocent Iraqies will die, unfortunately.  Saddam will use whatever weapons he has becasue they are the only ones that he has, a last resort.  I still hope that there is some kind of diplomatic solution possible, even when last night Powel and Bush said that there wasn't.  However, I don't think that it is currently possible with the political situation.  When the war does start tomorrow night, I pray that it is over quick with as few casualties as possible.  Again, I am not advocating not to sit back and do nothing, I just think that now is not the right time.  I am fully behind that American, English, and Spanish forces.  And when we do bomb the *&#% out of them, we hit them hard and we hit them in the right places.

<snip>
It's a bad idea to go to war with Iraq. I expect a high casualty rate due to unorthodox warfare (i.e chemical/biological).
</snip>
I subscribe to the theory that Saddam is not stupid. He knows that he can't win the war.

Right now, he is a symbol of opposition to america - the US are seen as the opressor - in the muslim world, at least.

If he uses NBCs, he will no longer be a martyr - everyone will see that the US was right all along.

This is no longer a question of who will win. This is a question of how much damage he can cause to America's reputation.

<snip>
I am NOT saying, however, that we should not do anything about Saddam. I think that many Americans and innocent Iraqies will die, unfortunately. Saddam will use whatever weapons he has becasue they are the only ones that he has, a last resort.
</snip>
He has plenty of weapons other then NBCs. A lot of people will resist the occupation.

<snip>
I still hope that there is some kind of diplomatic solution possible, even when last night Powel and Bush said that there wasn't.
</snip>

Of course, there was a bloody solution - unfortunatly, America had to attack immediatly.

Iraq could have been disarmed by inspectors. The reason Bush wants a war NOW, is simple logistics. If he waits for a month, 2 months, the summer will set in, and all of the American forces in Iraq will cook.

<snip>
However, I don't think that it is currently possible with the political situation.
</snip>

Correct. Bush burned the bridge behind him, when he gave the ultimatum.

<snip>
When the war does start tomorrow night, I pray that it is over quick with as few casualties as possible.
</snip>

That is what all Americans want. They want a quick war, because they never experienced the horrors of war. I predict that the American public will have to have to contend with casualty rates of 20%+, extended warfare, enourmous costs, inflation. Perhaps when America figures out the costs of war, they won't be so trigger happy - then again, Vietnam didn't change that.

<snip>
Again, I am not advocating not to sit back and do nothing, I just think that now is not the right time.
</snip>
Agreed. I don't want a war. I want the inspectors back. It's a shame that we can't make the bastards that start the wars suffer in them.

<snip>
I am fully behind that American, English, and Spanish forces. And when we do bomb the *&#% out of them, we hit them hard and we hit them in the right places.
</snip>

There are 2 possibilities for the war:

A: Iraq will fall quickly. America will look like a bunch of morons, as they have talked about "Saddam's mighty army".

B: Iraq will not fall quickly. There will be urban combat. Either America goes in, and suffers HEAVY casualties, or they will bomb the crap out of cities. If they suffer heavy casualties, there will be a public outrage. If the bombings will kill ~500,000 Iraqis, there will be a small international outrage...

Isn't it interesting that America will not be trialed for all the innocent civilian deaths...