Already surrendering??

[JohnR7]

Today at 02:49 PM O'Mara said this in Post #11

Agreed, and these guys know that when Sadam

Can't they just hold an election? Maybe it got messy between Al Gore and Bush, mostly due to bad jokes. But it sure is a lot easier to get rid of one president and put another one in this country.

The problem in some of these countries, is that it takes a war to get rid of one, to replace him with another one. I really doubt if the Iraq people care who their president is. They most likely feel one is as bad as another.

 

[Didymus]

we should be thankful we live in a country which has a peaceful transfer of power.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 03:00 PM O'Mara said this in Post #15

The war won't last very long, then we will have to take care of an entire country. I'd be more worried about that.

All we have to do is get rid of one president and put in another leader and stick around long enough for him to hire some loyal troops to protect him.

The military has no desire AT ALL to police a country. Usually they do not like to even go in and do this sort of thing. To overthrow one government and install another. So you can be sure that they feel they have a good reason to do what they are doing.

Of course you have to listen to all the other countries complain that United States uses its power to set up whatever sort of government they want. But there is not much you can do about that. People are going to complain.

Iraq is pretty rich, they will not have much of a problem finding someone who wants to be president. The job pays REAL good. You can bet your last dollar that Sadan does not want to give up the money he is making right now.

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 06:55 PM Didymus said this in Post #22

we should be thankful we live in a country which has a peaceful transfer of power.

Yes, the photo they have of five US Presidents in the Oval office is a testimony as to how the transfer of power can be done in a peaceful way. Also we tend to pardon our presidents of any laws they may have broken. We do not try to put them in jail as they do in some countries. Or a lot of time they leave office and head straight for the airport to get out of there in a hurry.

 

[David Gould]

With regard to the numbers of US forces, the US is 12 years better technologically. Iraq has half the number of forces it had from last time and they are worse equipped and even worse trained.

The war will be over very, very rapidly - much quicker than last time. I suspect that the casualties on the US side will be even lower than the 150 odd from the last war.

The question is going to be how many civilian casualties there will be. How many civilian casualties are worth the victory? I support the war but I still have my concerns.

 

[Didymus]

I just hope we are prepared. after clinton weakened our armed services with all his budget cuts.

 

[David Gould]

Today at 11:27 AM Didymus said this in Post #26

I just hope we are prepared. after clinton weakened our armed services with all his budget cuts.

lol!

The US military is the strongest it has ever been in history. There is no military in the world that can stand up to it. Indeed, if the entire world was to attack the US my money would be on the US to win. (this is assuming a conventional, non-nuclear conflict).


Don't buy into the propoganda that somehow the US military is weak.

This war is going to be swift.

 

[caley]

Of course they're surrendering. They know they can't win. Nobody over there really wants a fight anyway.

 

[datan]

Today at 12:43 AM David Gould said this in Post #27



lol!

The US military is the strongest it has ever been in history. There is no military in the world that can stand up to it. Indeed, if the entire world was to attack the US my money would be on the US to win. (this is assuming a conventional, non-nuclear conflict).


Don't buy into the propoganda that somehow the US military is weak.

This war is going to be swift.

no, it wouldn't win if the ENTIRE world started attacking them. US army has less then 10 active divisions.

 

[Wolseley]

no, it wouldn't win if the ENTIRE world started attacking them. US army has less then 10 active divisions.

Wishful thinking, datan? From the tone of your posts in all of these threads, I can't help but suspect that you'd be absolutely delighted if the "ENTIRE world" did attack the United States.

 

[datan]

Today at 11:51 AM Wolseley said this in Post #30


Wishful thinking, datan? From the tone of your posts in all of these threads, I can't help but suspect that you'd be absolutely delighted if the "ENTIRE world" did attack the United States.

huh??? don't put words into my mouth.

 

[Wolseley]

Nothing of the kind. Merely attempting to clarify for myself what your statement meant, that's all. It's clear that you have little use for the American President or American policy; I simply wanted to know whether your stance on the "ENTIRE world" attacking America was pro or con.

 

[datan]

hypothical situation. another poster was postulating what would happen if the entire world attacked the US.

 

[Wolseley]

Very good.