Post your expert predictions for Iraq war

[Anonymous]

Rapid unraveling of Hussein regime, within days if not hours of hostilities.....rejoicing in streets of Baghdad....."Arab street" largely indifferent.....overall vibe comparable to 1989 Panama intervention.....French grouse.

[Jason McCullough]

Pretty much, yeah.

[exodusquandary]

Bush keeps pussyfooting around with the situation until someone quietly removes Saddam from power, solving Bush's problem for him. Bush goes on to threaten some other country who may or may not be guilty of developing weapons of mass destruction.

Ten years later, Saddam and Bin Laden show up on a special terrorist celebrity edition of "Where are they now?"

[Anonymous]

The UN doing everything they can to protect the current situation in Iraq just to show Bush that he isn't an Emperor.

[Jakub]

American forces encounter stiffer than expected resistance, and they find themselves too outnumbered.

Iraq pays a heavy price in the air war but it's not a decisive victory this time around. The conflict spawns significant protests from neighboring Arab nations and some, particularly Syria and Saudi Arabia, will clandestinely support Iraq. Iran may encourage Shiite rebellions to topple Hussein and resist the Americans.

In an attempt to gain at least one major internal supporter, the US will back the Kurds and possibly alienate Turkey. More likely, the US invasion with a Saddam-removal guarantee will set off a (truly) spontaneous Kurdish rebellion in the North of Iraq which will spill over into Turkey. The Turks won't be pleased, and the rebellion might just give political momentum to the more radical religious elements in the country.

There is basically only one ultimate conclusion to this - the drop of US influence worldwide. Whether or not they win in the Gulf, it's a loss in the end. Controlling Iraq will cause too much resentment of US power, and Bush isn't fooling anybody by portraying Saddam as the next Stalin. Iraq is hardly a threat of Soviet proportions, Europeans aren't buying it and neither is the rest of the world. If the US loses the war, well, this will have more worldwide backlash than Vietnam. A re-invasion won't be possible (or at least advisable), since a US defeat will rally Arab states (even give nominal Iranian support) around Iraq. Kuwait will be fucked.

[Anonymous]

Numerous casualties compared to last time.

Use of chemical and other weapons against neighboring countries.

Even less resolve among Iraqi troops than last time.

Hundreds of dead westerners, tens of thousands of dead iraquis.

Domestic terrorism in US and other countries increases exponentially due to the rallying cry of the Great Satan invading the middle east.

If Saddam is even killed, he becomes hailed as a martyr.

[Anonymous]

Iraqi military falls apart faster than it did in 1990. It's smaller, weaker, and nowhere near as dangerous as it was in 1990. It has been denied spare parts for its tanks for over a decade... it hasn't really practiced or excercised for that long. (A lot of military observers noted that when Saddam announced he was immediately repositioning one of his divisions to guard Baghdad that it took more than two weeks for that division to execute the move, even though the distance involved was relatively miniscule.) Iraqi air power was a joke in the last war and won't even bother showing up for this one. And, Desert Storm showed the total lack of morale that their conscript-laden army had. They won't want to die for Saddam this time, either.

By comparison, the US military is a lot more lethal. Yes, it will be a smaller force, but it will be a much more lethal one. We've incorporated precision and information networking into our war-fighting doctrine to a degree that was unimaginable 10 years ago. For example: a single B-52 bomber can now provide close air support to troops on the ground, even if it's cruising at 40,000 feet; we showed that in Afghanistan. Our equipment is better than it was from the last war, especially our night vision equipment. I imagine a lot of our assaults will take place at night. Any ground unit that attempts to engage our units in the open desert will be immediately detected and annihilated by airpower and artillery. Urban combat is trickier, but I do think that we'll draw a ring around Baghdad and let the Iraqi military do the job of actually turning on Saddam. Give them an offer they can't refuse: you get to live if you bring in Saddam's head.

There will be some of the Republican Guard that will fight to the death, cause they've got no choice. They'll be the first ones to get lined up and shot by the population they've been terrorizing and oppressing for decades. Those units will need to be crushed, but we can do that.

Here's a thing you gotta know about Europeans. They'll bitch, but they'll go along with it 'cause they've got no choice. And, secretly, they'll admit the US was right. They won't like that fact, and they won't admit it, but secretly they'll admit that getting rid of Saddam is a good thing.

As for the Arab street, the liberation of Kabul showed anything, it's that once the 24-hour news channels start broadcasting live satellite feed of millions of happy liberated people, it's time for them to shut the hell up.

[Jason Levine]

In case you haven't already seen it (http://www2.warnerbros.com/madmagazine/files/onthestands/ots_424/gulfwars.html).

[Anonymous]

Oh, and it's not as if Al Queda is going to use the Iraqi invasion as a reason to strike against America. They'll just use it as an excuse, but they're ALREADY TRYING TO STRIKE AMERICA, folks. What the hell was 9/11? Or our embassies in Africa? Or the Cole?

Whether we invade Iraq or not, Al Queda will still look to strike America. Don't pretend that if we don't invade Iraq that Al Queda will leave us alone.

[Anonymous]

Whether we invade Iraq or not, Al Queda will still look to strike America. Don't pretend that if we don't invade Iraq that Al Queda will leave us alone.

Of course not. But they'll have far less trouble finding young idiots to blow themselves up for the cause with the rallying cry they'll have after the Americans invade Iraq.

[AIM]

Maybe Nostrodomus was right? War with Iraq could lead to bigger conflicts and ultimatley we could be looking at WW3. He did say that 2 man made towers will fall, and this will lead to a war with the man who wears the turbin.

:shock:

[Paxton]

The British Royal Navy plays a pivotal role in blockading continental Europe to prevent Germany from intervening to assist Saddam.

[balut]

France will surrender, and then realize that no one is actually invading them. They quickly un-surrender before anyone notices.

[Anonymous]

AIM, I asked for expert opinions, not those of fucking idiots.

The "Nostradamus 9/11 prediction" has been debunked in numerous forums, the most concise being here http://www.urbanlegends.com/ulz/nostradamus.html

[Derek Smart [3000AD]]

Rapid unraveling of Hussein regime, within days if not hours of hostilities.....rejoicing in streets of Baghdad....."Arab street" largely indifferent.....overall vibe comparable to 1989 Panama intervention.....French grouse.

...or another Somalia?

This is going to be urban combat folks. It is highly unlikely that US forces are ready for that - without serious casualties.

[hido]

Here's my prediction:

I'm going to be working a lot more because one of my assistants is about to get activated.

[AIM]

AIM, I asked for expert opinions, not those of fucking idiots.

The "Nostradamus 9/11 prediction" has been debunked in numerous forums, the most concise being here http://www.urbanlegends.com/ulz/nostradamus.html

Expert opinions? please...

In fact, I've read a couple of your post and Your a fukin racist! Just admit it. The reason you don't have a registered account is because your a racist, POS.

have a nice day. :D

[Kalle]

Expert opinions? Bah.

If someone viewing this board is a CIA operative, white house staffer, or holds a similar position with access to intelligence on Iraq, could you please speak up now? Oh, I'm sorry, you don't want to reveal yourself to the public and/or you've never heard of QT3? So sorry, We'll have to make do with guesses from a scarcely informed public then.

[Anonymous]

Please keep the predictions coming. Again, expert predictions only, please.

[Desslock]

AIM, I asked for expert opinions, not those of fucking idiots.

He's just looking for a way to get out of paying his credit cards.

[Jason McCullough]

]
Rapid unraveling of Hussein regime, within days if not hours of hostilities.....rejoicing in streets of Baghdad....."Arab street" largely indifferent.....overall vibe comparable to 1989 Panama intervention.....French grouse.

...or another Somalia?

This is going to be urban combat folks. It is highly unlikely that US forces are ready for that - without serious casualties.

Explain why Iraqis are going to defend him again, if it's obvious the US is taking him down for real? "Sure, he gangrapes people, and the US is going to win anyway, but what the hey, I'll die for him."

[Kalle]

Explain why Iraqis are going to defend him again, if it's obvious the US is taking him down for real? "Sure, he gangrapes people, and the US is going to win anyway, but what the hey, I'll die for him."

Well, as mentioned the people who were doing the gang rapes, the people who took advantage of their position in the hierarchy as thugs, would most likely be willing to die for him, since the alternative is being lynched by an angry mob of Iraqi civilians.

[Jason McCullough]

And how many of those is there, really?

[Kalle]

I have absolutely no idea, but the Republican Guard was mentioned. They number a couple of thousand, don't they?

[Brad Grenz]

And most of them will be dying in their tanks.


Maybe Nostrodomus was right? War with Iraq could lead to bigger conflicts and ultimatley we could be looking at WW3. He did say that 2 man made towers will fall, and this will lead to a war with the man who wears the turbin.

Saddam wears a beret. A beret, I think it's french.

[MarchHare]

How about this scenario:

Within 48 hours of the US attack, Saddam launches any medium range missles he has remaining at Israel. Sharon, who has sworn that Israel will not remain idle if attacked this time, retaliates. Syria, Egypt, and Lebenon invade Israel (unsucessfully?). The mother of all Arab-Israeli wars erupts.

Meanwhile, China uses the US's precedent of attacking a country unprovoked because they may be a threat in the future and invades Taiwan. Afterall, "if America can do it, why can't we?", says China. Maybe they even fabricate some evidence to show that Taiwan was plotting terrorist attacks against them. Bush keeps his promise to defend Taiwan from the Chinese and declares war on China, engulfing US forces on two fronts, including a war with the largest army in the world. All the while the body-bags are piling up from the urban fighting in Baghdad.

All the instability on either side of them topples the already fragile situation between India and Pakistan...

Far-fetched maybe, but it certainly has potential. If there's another, more likely scenario for WWIII, I've yet to hear it.

[Met_K]

Considering Bush just announced that Nukes are an A-OK retaliatory weapon for chemical/biological weapons, then I'd say we're FUCKED.

[Brad Grenz]

Meanwhile, China uses the US's precedent of attacking a country unprovoked because they may be a threat in the future and invades Taiwan. Afterall, "if America can do it, why can't we?", says China.

How? China has not the ability to mount an amphibious invasion. Even if they tried we could easily establish air superiority and take out the Chinese fleet from the sky.


Considering Bush just announced that Nukes are an A-OK retaliatory weapon for chemical/biological weapons, then I'd say we're FUCKED.

This is a long standing policy, not just Bush's. Biological/Chemical weapons are considered Weapons of Mass Destruction (you've heard the term, I'm sure). They demand an equal responce, and for the US that means nuclear, because we don't do the chemical/biological thing. But that does not mean it's an automatic responce. The retaliation would be measured. No one wants to nuke Baghdad just to kill one guy. And it would take a huge attack before our nukes would come into the equasion.

[Met_K]

Considering Bush just announced that Nukes are an A-OK retaliatory weapon for chemical/biological weapons, then I'd say we're FUCKED.

This is a long standing policy, not just bushes. Biological/Chemical weapons are considered Weapons of Mass Destruction (you've heard the term, I'm sure). They demand an equal responce, and for the US that means nuclear, because we don't do the chemical/biological thing. But that does not mean it's an automatic responce. The retaliation would be measured. No one wants to nuke Baghdad just to kill one guy. And it would take a huge attack before our nukes would come into the equasion.

That's quite funny, because whenever Bush says something, people tend to take it in a context much more serious than when someone else says it. If Clinton were to say, "Nuclear weapons are an OK response," people would nod their head and say, "Of course, it's policy." Bush says it and people call him a warmonger. Why? Because it's true.

[Anonymous]

MarchHare, your scenario for WWIII has been assessed as "inexpert."

A far more likely scenario for WWIII, as any casual glance at 20th-century history would furbish, would be to allow belligerent governments to amass arsenals that tip the balance of regional power.

I suggest you go back and re-read your Goebbels, and pay attention to the part where he explains exactly how simply World War II would have been averted by a simple French infantry demonstration in March 1936.

[AIM]

Meanwhile, China uses the US's precedent of attacking a country unprovoked because they may be a threat in the future and invades Taiwan. Afterall, "if America can do it, why can't we?", says China.

How? China has not the ability to mount an amphibious invasion. Even if they tried we could easily establish air superiority and take out the Chinese fleet from the sky.


Considering Bush just announced that Nukes are an A-OK retaliatory weapon for chemical/biological weapons, then I'd say we're FUCKED.

This is a long standing policy, not just Bush's. Biological/Chemical weapons are considered Weapons of Mass Destruction (you've heard the term, I'm sure). They demand an equal responce, and for the US that means nuclear, because we don't do the chemical/biological thing. But that does not mean it's an automatic responce. The retaliation would be measured. No one wants to nuke Baghdad just to kill one guy. And it would take a huge attack before our nukes would come into the equasion.

People underestimate China, as they could give us a run for our money. I'm sure that if they wanted they could land on the shores of Taiwan and quickly overwhelm the country. I doubt that they would attempt this anyway, but hey.. anything is possible.

My bet is with North Korea. When the war with Iraq is over, what are we going to do with this country? Do we attack or just play it out? The analysist are predicting huge American loses if we attack this country. They have the technology to back up that huge army. The technology might not be advanced as America's technology, but i'm sure that it could cause us some misery. Could America accept a huge lose of our armed forces if we attack? I doubt it.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that people overestimate China. They see those 1.2 billion people, and they automatically get scared and bow down.

The Chinese military is at least 2 decades away from challenging the US military, and that's being optimistic for them. They cannot project power. They do not have a Navy that could challenge a Carrier Battle Group, let alone the two we keep on station in the Pacific. Their Air Force is made up of mainly thousands of obsolete MiGs. The Chinese generals were literally scared shitless after the US dismantled Iraq in the first Desert Storm, and aside from some Su-27's, they really haven't invested in technology.

China also has a lot of internal problems to sort out with, not the least of which is the Communist Party. But there are all sorts of other social pressures on their society that are building, corruption is rampant, pollution in some areas is off the scale, etc, etc, etc.

And China's economy could grow at a sizzling 9-percent a year for the next 20 years, and it will only have a $5 trillion economy after all that time, less than what the US economy is today. They still have a way to go.

And China doesn't want to isolate the West, not at this moment in history. It desperately needs the West to industrialize and modernize. That's why China's been making nice with the US since 9/11. Remember early last year how beligerent they were over the spy plane incident. But when we launched a major military operation on their border with Afghanistan, they didn't bat an eye about it or voice a single concern out loud.

While it's true that Rummy and the rest of the neo-cons view China as the emerging threat, they also don't see it as a major threat for a few more decades, at the least. And what they're hoping between now and then is that eventually the ChiComm Party will fall apart, like damn near every other communist country has.

[Jakub]

MarchHare, your scenario for WWIII has been assessed as "inexpert."

A far more likely scenario for WWIII, as any casual glance at 20th-century history would furbish, would be to allow belligerent governments to amass arsenals that tip the balance of regional power.

I suggest you go back and re-read your Goebbels, and pay attention to the part where he explains exactly how simply World War II would have been averted by a simple French infantry demonstration in March 1936.

The current scenario is actually a lot like World War I, Mr. Expert. Although we don't have the quite the same system of alliances, we do have a few countries who are willing to go to what they perceive are easy wars to achieve their aims.

We have a superpower harassing a minor nation, some grudges to be settled worldwide, and a fight for resources that minor nations have.

[Chris Nahr]

The Chinese generals were literally scared shitless after the US dismantled Iraq in the first Desert Storm

So that was the point of this operation...

[Reeko]

My bet is with North Korea. When the war with Iraq is over, what are we going to do with this country? Do we attack or just play it out? The analysist are predicting huge American loses if we attack this country. They have the technology to back up that huge army. The technology might not be advanced as America's technology, but i'm sure that it could cause us some misery. Could America accept a huge lose of our armed forces if we attack? I doubt it.

North Korea doesn't have enough food to go to war, and have no weak neighbor to attack. They are desparate for money at this point. So desparate that they have admitted to running a nuclear weapons program and trying to sell SCUD's to Yemen secretly.

[Anonymous]

Jakub, you are simple.

The first world war exposed the folly of a now-defunct system of power balance between since-vanished European monarchies. You are a clown if you expect to compare the current Iraqi situation to the standoff between the Triple Entente and the Central Powers.

A far better historical analogy would be the 1989 Panama situation, if you adjust for Noriega being a two-time aggressor with a WMD program and the main obstacle standing between a failed state supporting Palestinian terror and a flowering, modernized Arab society.

Still, I think the Nazis teach an important lesson that directly relates to Saddam. Both Hitler and Saddam made the same megalomaniacal mistake -- Hitler in 1939, Saddam in 1990 -- when they commenced their aggressions just a few years BEFORE they'd have successfully developed atomic weapons.

Had both men held off a while, there might have been little anyone could have done to avoid an apocalyptic atomic exchange in Europe (or the Middle East, respectively). The main historical difference is that Hitler didn't survive to learn from his mistake, whereas Saddam has.

[Anonymous]

The United States has a very low tolerance for casualties, human lives have much lesser meaning in China and the Chinese have time and time again shown their willingness to forego lives for victory. War has always been about attrition, the United States is far and away ahead of the rest of the world in terms technology, they can cause alot of death on the side of their enemies with very little casualty to themselves; don't underestimate China's resolve to win especially after how it has been treated the past 150 years.

China is making nice after 9/11 because they can now use that to hold the USA in check whenever they need to put down any possible rebellions ("terrorist" acts) that may occur in the future by the Xing Jiang (unrest in the Middle East will effect China a lot worse than the US) or the Tibetans (though the Tibetans rely extremely heavily on China for support, something most people don't realize or just plain ignore).

[Anonymous]

The United States has a very low tolerance for casualties, human lives have much lesser meaning in China and the Chinese have time and time again shown their willingness to forego lives for victory. War has always been about attrition, the United States is far and away ahead of the rest of the world in terms technology, they can cause alot of death on the side of their enemies with very little casualty to themselves; don't underestimate China's resolve to win

Just because public opinion matters more in this country than anywhere else doesn't mean we don't have a backbone. And you can banzai charge at howitzers shooting point-blank at you and your buddies all day and all that you'll accomplish is the creation of a large pile of chunky human remains. In other words, the Japanese in WWII didn't lose for a lack of will to win. Now that I think about it, WWI was a kind of testbed for this theory too. Not pretty. And don't think that the Russians in WWII are a good counterargument; they not only had more men and a willingness to let them get chewed up a la Grant, but they had a comparably large economy, vast amounts of oil, tanks that were as good or better than the German's, and the worst winter in years on their side as well. (Off topic, but I've heard it said that for Germany, defeat was assured the moment opperation Barbarossa was launched and I believe it.)

More recently, you can ask the al-Quaida and Taliban forces in Afghanistan how much fun it is running around with nothing to shoot at and waiting for sudden death to come for them with absolutely no warning. If China is as far behind us as I've heard, then it won't be much better for them in a conflict. Of course, you just never know for sure . . .

I like talking about war. Duh huh. /slingblade voice :)

[Anonymous]

"War has always been about attrition"


Not in the last 12 years it hasn't, insofar as any U.S. armed forces were concerned.

[Anonymous]

Arnold Schwartzenegger will parachute into Iraq and take out Saddam, like Commando with less Dan Hedaya, though he could probably play Saddam as well as he played a Latin American ex-dictator.