POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq

Discussion in 'Politics' started by candletrader, Dec 8, 2002.

Which of these is most likely?

  1. Co-ordinated large-scale bombings of shopping malls and offices (similar to September 11, but not us

    12 vote(s)
    133.3%
  2. Biological attacks on schools, malls, airports etc

    5 vote(s)
    55.6%
  3. Highly co-ordinated machine gun mow-downs of crowds by suicide gangs

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. One person suicide bombings (similar to that carried out by Hamas) co-ordinated across numerous smal

    30 vote(s)
    333.3%
  5. Devastating car bombs set to go off amongst traffic queues of commuters crawling into work in the ru

    3 vote(s)
    33.3%
  6. It won't be as obvious as any of the above, but it will make September 11 look like a wasp bite com

    26 vote(s)
    288.9%
  7. No repercussions

    95 vote(s)
    1,055.6%
  1. My guess is that after we take over Iraq, then Iran, we are coming after you!!!!!
     
    #921     Jan 26, 2003
  2. Sorry, no oil reserves in my home (excluding the sunflower oil and cod liver oil), so I am not worth the trouble :D


    Late addition: I forget to mention the massage oil, which fits neatly into the context of my next post :)
     
    #922     Jan 26, 2003
  3. Brother Optional,

    Now, that depends on who "we" is... if you are a hot single blonde, you are most welcome to come after me, so that I may come on you (j/k)... if you are a male, I cannot (to the best of my knowledge) oblige, unless you wanna play an innocent game of spin the bottle...

    Regards,
    Candle

    P.S. What's the significance of that bird icon?
     
    #923     Jan 26, 2003
  4. Those who can't see the significance, apparently have their heads in the sand.
     
    #924     Jan 26, 2003
  5. Good one!
     
    #925     Jan 26, 2003
  6. Well said... by a full blown
    grassy-knoll-cia-military-industrial-plot/conspiracy nut case.
     
    #926     Jan 26, 2003
  7. Saddam be forewarned, you think US soldiers are going home en masse in body bags? Think again.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/24/eveningnews/main537928.shtml

    "They're calling it "A-Day," A as in airstrikes so devastating they would leave Saddam's soldiers unable or unwilling to fight.

    If the Pentagon sticks to its current war plan, one day in March the Air Force and Navy will launch between 300 and 400 cruise missiles at targets in Iraq. As CBS News Correspondent David Martin reports, this is more than number that were launched during the entire 40 days of the first Gulf War.

    On the second day, the plan calls for launching another 300 to 400 cruise missiles.

    "There will not be a safe place in Baghdad," said one Pentagon official who has been briefed on the plan.

    "The sheer size of this has never been seen before, never been contemplated before," the official said.

    The battle plan is based on a concept developed at the National Defense University. It's called "Shock and Awe" and it focuses on the psychological destruction of the enemy's will to fight rather than the physical destruction of his military forces.

    "We want them to quit. We want them not to fight," says Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the Shock and Awe concept which relies on large numbers of precision guided weapons.

    "So that you have this simultaneous effect, rather like the nuclear weapons at Hiroshima, not taking days or weeks but in minutes," says Ullman."

    600 to 800 cruise missiles in 48 hours- If the US uses this tactic, I think the possibilities of high US casualties will be significantly reduced.

    This article is prefaced by this amusing Dan Blather comment: "We assure you this report contains no information that the Defense Department thinks could help the Iraqi military."
    CBS News Anchor Dan Rather

    No shit, Danny, what's Saddam going to do, put in some extra triple A batteries?
     
    #927     Jan 26, 2003
  8. yes, it's the precision of the missiles that allows such an attack to work (and be morally justifiable) -- ie, military targets sans the civilian casualities that come with blanket bombing.

    the psychological shock of a nuclear weapon without the undesirable side effects. i like it.


    candletraitor, about all that US v china/india/russia BS. AS IF the US would lack the balls to go at it against those peasants! lol. there is no military force on earth that even comes close to matching US military might. sure, america might not be able to defeat them (with conventional weapons) on their own turf, but there is no way they'd ever be able to conquer america. so what's there to 'lack the balls' about?
     
    #928     Jan 26, 2003
  9. I think the strongest point for acceptance of this use of massive force is that the entire US military is now controlled by Saddam... at least on a "launch / don't launch" basis, laying the fault, as well as the fate of his people, entirely at his feet.
     
    #929     Jan 26, 2003
  10. fairplay

    fairplay Guest

    Daniel,

    which country in the world actually plans to conquer America? Well, maybe your friendly neighbors in the North?
    Or your other friendly neighbors to the South?

    Nobody disputes the fact that the US Army is the biggest military power in the world of today, in terms of striking power and efficiency. Although, as you correctly point out, the US military might not be able to defeat them on their turf, but most countries worry about nothing but their own "turf" anyway.

    Just think of those little VC gangs that gave the US and China some painful lessons on warfare! Remember the helicopter leaving from the roof of the US embassy in Saigon? Sans Miss Saigon, of course!
     
    #930     Jan 26, 2003