Hawk Scenario for Maynard

[vraiblonde]

Okay, I had to think about it because it's hard to tell what's going to happen until we actually go in. BUT...

The UN will decide to sit this one out. The US will go in with the countries that are onboard with this. The whole thing will be over in 6 months or less (with the emphasis on LESS). Saddam will be captured and offered asylum somewhere. I personally would like to see him turned over to Iraqi citizens to fix his little red wagon but I'm sure he will either stand trial for his past war crimes or, more likely, he'll spend the rest of his days as a guest of some Arab country.

The US will help set up a democracy of sorts in Iraq, amid the protest of the other Arab nations. But they'll pretty much stay out of it, aside from some general pissing, moaning and threats.

The libs in this country will still be losing their ever-loving minds because there weren't more deaths for them to blame on Bush. Howard Dean and the rest of the candidate crew will abruptly change their tune about that war-monger Bush and will either say they were for it all a long or figure out a way to make it look like Bush didn't finish the job (this worked well for them with Big Bush). Bush will be re-elected in 2004.

We'll come back to this later and see how close I was.

 

[Kyle]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
... but I'm sure he will either stand trial for his past war crimes or, more likely, he'll spend the rest of his days as a guest of some Arab country. ...

My money is on Marseilles!

 

[MGKrebs]

Sounds pretty good.

Thanks for your thoughts.
Right now, I'm really hoping that saddam takes the offer to step down (and out). We just might be able to pull this off without a lot of shooting.

I have some other questions, but not much time at the moment.

on edit: I suppose some libs will act like that, but they really should give shrubbie credit if he gets this done with minimal casualties. I think more likely they will be critical of his methods; that he could have achieved the same result without the damage to relations/UN/antagonizing Arabs, etc. Beats me if that is valid or not. I guess at that point we just would have to see how well he does patching those things up. If a minimal casualty scenario is what transpires, I hope France et.al will then offer to help with the peacekeeping/rebuilding/humanitarian efforts and costs. And I hope we let them. After all, that is what they want in the end, they (and I) just think there was a better way to go about it.

 

[Larry Gude]

KYLE!!!

Where have all the legendary goons throughout history holed up?

Lenin?

The Ayatollah Khomeini?

That's right...

PARIS

 

[Kyle]

I stand corrected!

 

[SmallTown]

I don't see Bush being re-elected unless some major domestic issues begin to improve. He couldn't get half the votes from Al "the bore" gore, even with people trying to shadow gore with clinton's "behavior". The handling of the iraq situation has been rough at best (both sides agree on this, but for very different reasons).
His only pluses so far is that we got a check in the mail soon after he took office, and he removed the taliban and is going after al-qaida still (thought I heard that in the latest budget Bush had around, oh, zero dollars go towards afghanistan but the congress threw in some money anyways)

Bush's tax plans look nice to the american people, but the cuts as well as the cost for war is putting us back in the red financially (at record levels)

Bush Sr. was in a similar situation (won a war with iraq but didn't address domestic issues enough) and we saw the outcome there.

If the dems can decide on a good candidate instead of all the in-party finger pointing and sitting on their hands, I feel they can have a strong campaign against Bush.

 

[Larry Gude]

ST

Exactly!

Now THAT is a "Hawk Scenario for Maynard" post if I've ever read one.

 

[Tonio]

Here's my nightmarish scenario:

A day or so after the US invades Iraq, moderate regimes through the Muslim world are overthrown by radicals.

Saddam launches Scuds against Israel like he did in 1991. The US asks Israel to not fight back. Sharon tells the US to go pee up a rope, and counterattacks Iraq. When this happens, almost every country in the Muslim world attacks both Israel and the US troops in Iraq. Israel is wiped off the map in less than a week. The US becomes bogged down in a protracted struggle in Iraq.

Finally, China and North Korea ally themselves with the radical Muslim regimes and launch a nuclear attack on US forces in Iraq. The US counterattacks with its full nuclear might, leading to a full-scale exchange with China.

 

[Kyle]

Gotta search through the classifieds and see if I can find a Supercharged AMX for sale.

 

[Frank]

Originally posted by Tonio
Israel is wiped off the map in less than a week.

That really couldn't happen unless every Arab nation in the world did it, coordinated all their logistics, had nearly instantaneous troop movement, and decided to take Israel by overrunning it with armed men and Israel just simply ran out of bullets to shoot them all down. Militarily, Israel is just too strong for the combined might of the Middle East, and they'd need help from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia.

 

[MGKrebs]

3 scenarios

1. positive- Sodom Insane flees to Syria where he contracts aids and dies. We move in, everybody surrenders. The exile government moves in, lets Halliburton and Chevron have the oil (with Iraqi partners a la Saudi). Terrorism is set back on it's heels for a while. We b*tch slap the Palestinians around for a while until they do whatever it is we want them to do. N. Korea decides that this is not a good time to use up their only 2 nukes and crawls back into their hole. Israel, using the precedent of pre-emptive strikes against potential threats, takes out Syria (and therefore takes control of Lebanon too). Khadaffi retires to Liberia and becomes a steward on a cruise ship.

2. Realistic?- Most of Iraq surrenders, but not Baghdad. They fight hard against us, the battle lasts 6 weeks, we sustain 200 casualties. 7000 Iraqi casualties, but they were fighting against us. (This will be a major international law issue for a long time. Were they civilians defending their country against invaders, or combatants in a war?) Many of the oil wells are set on fire, either by them or our bombs. Sadistic Hussein disappears (May be dead or not, who knows). We occupy Iraq for at least the next 12 months, searching for (and finding) WMD's. All the while, there are sporadic attacks against our guys. 50 more casualties. And several routine accidents that claim 80 more. In the meantime, Iran gets nervous and starts actively and massively supplying/supporting terrorists. Several attacks over the next 12 months against the US succeed, poisoning the water supply of 2 cities and causing significant destruction in 2 others (via hijacked tanker trucks rammed into buildings or something similar). 900 die.

3. Negative- Same as above for Iraq, except that also Turkey choses to attempt to take over the oil wells at Kirkuk. The Kurds fight back, and we let them. Meanwhile, Iran moves in from the east and kicks both their asses. We soon move against the Iranians, but the Saudi's get pissed, and our guys in Saudi get hammered with "terrorist" attacks. 6000 Kurds die, 12,000 Iranians, 800 US. People start rioting in Kuwait, and they cut the water and electricity to our bases there. Same as above for terrorist attacks against the US. Also, the Russians send supply support to the Iranians, reigniting the cold war. China warns the US to stay the hell away from NK. US economy goes into depression, Bush declares martial law. Draft reinstated.

 

[Bruzilla]

Nice try Tonio, but you don't know much about the Middle East and the Arabs. There isn't a single Arab country that has a military that can take on Israel. They couldn't do it even if they all banded together. Fact is they picked the wrong side of the US-Soviet Union pissing contest and their militaries have been decimated over the years while Israel's has been flourishing. Israel could take the Middle East any time it wanted to.

The Arabs do not field very effective armies because their troops generally don't want to be there. They serve under threats to themselves and their families, and they are led by officers who earn their rank through family ties rather than military knowledge and skills. Add the fact that most of their hardware is 1980's technology that hasn't seen much maintenance since 1992, and it's easy to understand where the confidence of our military comes from.

I think Hussein will keep betting that the World will come to his aid and will hold out in Baghdad until it's obvious that the city is about to fall. Then he'll get on a cell phone and call the UN and say "TIME OUT!!!. I'm ready to go to France now" and wait for the UN to call Bush and tell him that Hussein has cried uncle. I only hope that the White House answering machine tells the UN to go F itself.

 

[Tonio]

Bruzilla, I don't pretend to be an expert on the Middle East. I'm operating on the assumption that Muslims around the world are beet-red with rage against the US and against Israel. For whatever reason, they want to kill every American they see.

 

[willie]

Originally posted by Tonio
Bruzilla, I don't pretend to be an expert on the Middle East. I'm operating on the assumption that Muslims around the world are beet-red with rage against the US and against Israel. For whatever reason, they want to kill every American they see.

You have this part right but your nightmarish scenario can't happen. The muslims wipe Israel off the map?

 

[Tonio]

Originally posted by willie
You have this part right but your nightmarish scenario can't happen. The muslims wipe Israel off the map?

Sure, Israel held off Arab nations in three wars. But if I'm correct about the level of rage in the Muslim world, then Israel can't hold out forever. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. Israel's population is a scant 6.5 million. Does the name Custer mean anything to you?

 

[willie]

Originally posted by Tonio
Sure, Israel held off Arab nations in three wars. But if I'm correct about the level of rage in the Muslim world, then Israel can't hold out forever. There are 1 billion Muslims in the world. Israel's population is a scant 6.5 million. Does the name Custer mean anything to you?

The Custer analogy won't work either. Crafty Indians against an overconfident white boy in close combat? Disorganized muslim warlords antiquated weaponry against Israeli's state of the art forces will end the same way it has in the past.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
The UN will decide to sit this one out. The US will go in with the countries that are onboard with this. The whole thing will be over in 6 months or less (with the emphasis on LESS).

Originally posted by MGKrebs
2. Realistic?- Most of Iraq surrenders, but not Baghdad. They fight hard against us, the battle lasts 6 weeks, we sustain 200 casualties. 7000 Iraqi casualties, but they were fighting against us. (This will be a major international law issue for a long time. Were they civilians defending their country against invaders, or combatants in a war?) Many of the oil wells are set on fire, either by them or our bombs.

Vraiblonde - 1
Maynard - 0

Back to our regularly scheduled program...

 

[jazz lady]

Originally posted by vraiblonde
Vraiblonde - 1
Maynard - 0

Go Vrai - Go Vrai - Go Vrai