Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (201447)	9/5/2006 9:38:19 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 281500

<Well, Iraq was, generally speaking, an easier scenario than originally expected, especially with regard to actually taking Baghdad itself.> Hawk, you were listening to the wrong people. Being an international geopolitical expert and international military consultant of worldwide renown, I explained right here in SI that the war against Saddam would take one orbit of a Globalstar satellite [110 minutes], which was a slight exaggeration as a figure of speech, but it was obviously going to be a simple matter to drive dirty great tanks right through the palace gates with aerial support from Predators, fighter-bomber, Spectres, cruise missiles, not to mention battalions of handy-dandy, up close and personal, helicopters. If I was a soldier in Saddam's army, I'd have been like Italian soldiers in WWII = hoping the opposition would arrive sooner rather than later so I could surrender quickly and get a good job in the new army. Or maybe I'd have ditched my weapons and uniform and run home in my undies once I realized Saddam wouldn't be after me for desertion. Rule number one for a good army is the troops believe in what they are doing. Ooops, I see that a few USA troops in Iraq are starting to look left and right and wondering if somebody in charge hasn't got some stupid ideas about what they are doing and why. There was never much in it for Saddam's troops other than some cash flow. Fighting the USA was much better than fighting the Iranians for Saddam. The Iranians couldn't win, wouldn't lose and kept on coming. The USA would win quickly, which was excellent for Iraqi troops who could quickly surrender or run for it without getting a bullet in the back from their officers [who were no doubt leading the charge - home]. The WMDs were always a joke and the "Gas! Gas! Gas!" calls silly. I did think the aftermath would be icky as it seemed obvious that the way to fight battalions of dirty great tanks and vast aerial attack was to hide inside with some weapons in the attic or conveniently in a nearby hidey hut, and come out when the evil-doers [from Islamic Jihad's point of view] were wandering around looking for the way back to the Green Zone. Heck, I even got the numbers of casualties about right - I think I guessed about 2,000 or 3,000 from Iraqi guerilla urban resistance tactics. <Of course, winning the peace has been slightly more difficult.. ;0)> Now, it's a dirty, nasty, religious and civil war of insurrection, with plenty of outsiders to keep the USA locked down and busy trying to drain the swamp while up to their arse in alligators. Even China and Russia must think it's no bad thing that the USA is so occupied. It probably keeps the number of Islamic Jihadists in Chechnya down to a minimum and eases the likelihood of too much pressure in Korea and elsewhere. It would have been so much better to have a NUN running Iraq's three provinces under the new, all singing and dancing NUN federal constitution, even with Saddam still as titular head, resplendent in a palace. Saddam could have achieved that [if he had the wit] and so could the USA. Mqurice