To: diana g who wrote (17681 ) 1/31/2003 8:49:00 PM From: russwinter Respond to of 206184 <strange choice to describe those who expect a relatively easy victory over Saddam.> I "hope" I eat crow on this one and that you TOHOEs are proven right. Feel free to gloat too, as it's one prediction I'd like to miss badly on. Still I would only say that the normal experience of armed conflict is not positive for either side. I think that's especially true in 2003 with the kind of weapons available for use. The differences between GW II, Afghanistan, and GW I are considerable IMO. Compared to the Afghan instance, the current foe is much larger and better armed. I think the 100,000+ or so goon cohort is also pretty nasty to boot. Relative to Afghan, and GW I, I think this will be more urban, as in come in and get us. I simply don't believe that the hard core Iraqis who fight will expose themselves out in the desert where they can be bombed, strafed and mowed down at a distance. Even an armchair general like me could figure that out. I'm deploying my fighters in cellars, bombed out buildings and rubble, city bunkers, sewers, alleys, apartment buildings (with civilians), store fronts, and I'm going to blow them a mile high if you send anybody even close. <Hopeless causes have a way of failing to be popular with many.> Plenty of soldiers have fought hard for questionable lost causes, there's nothing unusual in that. I have a war records file, photos, etc on about four Gt2 grandfathers (Confederates) to prove that. That's especially so, if you are an infidel coming into my motherland, and into my home city (versus defending Kuwait exposed in the desert). It won't be a Saddum popularity contest at that point. In fact, I expect plenty of Iraqis who might otherwise avoid a fight to show up for shot at this one. In Mogadishu, Somalia, a whole city turned out and attacked US forces (Black Hawk Down), and a thousand gave their lives in that fight. We're not in Kansas anymore.