[smallpoxgirl]

Killing Saddam will give the Sunni's a martyr and absolutely conclusively spell the end of the existance of Iraq as a nation. Nothing gives more power to an insurgency than a good martyr.

[dhfenton]

I've read that the focus of Bush's "surge" is going to be the Mahdi army of Al-Sadr. So they'll hang Saddam and piss off the Sunni's, and attack Al-Sadr to piss off the most dangerous Shiite militia within a month's time. How'd you like to a troop in Bagdad when all that shit hits the fan? It's just a matter of time until the "counter invasionary forces" get really lucky and catch a U.S. unit by surprise and inflict a huge number of casualties. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already; but if these two things happen nearly simultaneously, it won't be much longer before it happens. What do we do then, escalate or retreat in defeat? I know what Bush will do. Bomb Iran, of course. Why? Because, just because.

[mekrob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smallpoxgirl', 'K')illing Saddam will give the Sunni's a martyr and absolutely conclusively spell the end of the existance of Iraq as a nation. Nothing gives more power to an insurgency than a good martyr.

[mekrob]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's just a matter of time until the "counter invasionary forces" get really lucky and catch a U.S. unit by surprise and inflict a huge number of casualties.

[dhfenton]

I'm not so sure about that. Saddam led the Sunni's to a very high position in Iraq, and ensured their security and lifestyle. No one in Iraq has fallen farther than the Sunni's. The Sunni's will see this execution as a joint venture between the U.S. and the Shiites, and I believe they feel that they are in a life threatening struggle against oppression by those two entities. Saddam is a symbol of their prosperity, and his execution will be very much like a martyrdom of their leader. I believe the Sunni's will retaliate long and hard when Saddam is executed.

[dhfenton]

Quote:
Don't you find it odd that a "huge number of casualties" is constituted by the loss of a single US unit (obviously not a single soldier, but patrol unit or such)?


I'm thinking more in line of a sustained attack on the "Green Zone". It could collapse completely with a very large number of casualties. Air support would be less effective in such an area, and the attackers could rapidly move within the city to make a defense more difficult.

I do think the loss of 50, 40, even 30 troops in one attack would be seen as a huge loss by the American public. They are already solidly against this folly, and their tolerance for losses is very low. It would be a clear indication that the U.S. has lost control of the situation, and that would spike the anti-war sentiment in the U.S..

[ohanian]

The situation in Iraq can be easily controlled by the US army if they abandon such silly concepts such as

human rights

All they have to do is open up lots and lots of CC

Concentration Camps

Load it up full of civilians, and then the army can shoot anyone still moving around in the cities.

Then they can allow the civilians back into the cities in a controlled manner. Cut the whole country up into zones and anyone found outside their zone with the proper smartcard shall be instantaneously executed without appeal.

Problem solved in less than 6 months.

The motto is


Stability of the country first!
Human rights second.
Democracy last.

[mekrob]

Oh right. Concentration camps. I believe the Nazis plan for their use was "stability" as well. Why are those most blood-thirty the last ones in a uniform? Perhaps we lucked out on that one.

[auscanman]

Just a few problems with your suggestions Ohanian:

How do you distinguish insurgents from other civilians you put in the concentration camps? If the process is as efficient as you make it out to be, the concentration camp in any particular region would only need to be maintained for as long as it takes to go clean out that region. Unfortunately, a lot of insurgents would probably be willing to forego the fighting for that short period and shack up in the camp (with their weapons stashed somewhere in the desert, where nobody will find them). If, on the other hand, individuals are kept in the concentration camps over a long period, it would be sure to piss off a large number into joining the insurgency once they're released.

The repercussions for the already tarnished US image in the muslim world would be devastating as well were your brutal measures to be enacted. The threat of a terrorist attack would increase substantially.

I'm sure this option has been considered, and given the monstrous costs that would be involved and the low likelihood of success, it has probably been dismissed.

[smallpoxgirl]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ohanian', 'T')he situation in Iraq can be easily controlled by the US army if they abandon such silly concepts such as

human rights

All they have to do is open up lots and lots of CC

Concentration Camps

Load it up full of civilians, and then the army can shoot anyone still moving around in the cities.

[NEOPO]

Falcon base

Hmmm losing in Iraq - how does this thought creep into the minds of the Peak Oil aware?

The above video shows how defense companies are hard at work "winning".

You do understand that we have a much harder time moving a military base as a drilling platform right?
Its even harder to move all of those pesky billions of barrels of reserves



Step back - check the map - Saudi arabia check x10 - Afghanistan ok check - Iraq ok check - Pakistan "do as we say or we will bomb you back to the stone age" check - Turkmenistan ?? <evil laughter> check

Elections?
Ahh to believe that it matters who is in office in 2008 or that it has to occur prior

Saddam is dying because the US needs as many Oswalds and Hinckley jr's as it can get.

[NEOPO]

Is this the crystal ship that takes us to fantasy land?

I heard that when you go there you could just think something and it would become reality.

I cant wait to get there.

[evilgenius]

Okay, a little reasoning to back up my speculation.

The cold war example of large nations interfering in small nation's sovereignty was an example of proxy wars. By using a proxy the downside of a possible loss was always limited.

The only logical proxy available for the US to use in Iraq was the Shiite population around Basra. After the first Gulf War the US stabbed that same group in the back when they tried to rebel so using them would have been complicated. It would have been complicated because the same reasons for the US betrayal then still existed. Mostly backing the Shiites would have gone against the interests of the Saudis and relatedly the petro-dollar. There are other reasons but most of them roughly relate to these main reasons.

The US could not recruit a Sunni faction because the Sunnis of Iraq were loyal to Saddam. They are loyal in a way that will only go away upon Saddam's death. That means that even though the US has begun to prove to the Iraqi Sunnis that they are their friends (read protectors) there can't be any progress until Saddam is gone.

The Iraqi Sunnis are, of course, the perfect fit for the Saudis. They will accept the Iraqi Sunnis, leaderless it seems and willing to be influenced by SA.

As a consequence of this situation the US had to invade Iraq with its own forces in order to begin the cycle. They might wish for the Sunnis to take over, only the Sunnis can cooperate with SA like the US needs them to for swing producer status to be maintained, but it will be awhile. There has to be a civil war first.

The US has to withdraw for a war to get going in earnest. When it gets going in earnest the US will have to reenter, this time on the side of the Sunnis. Al Sadr just makes a great bogey man. He gives the US a reason to so openly support the Sunnis in Iraq and get away with it.

This whole thing is about expanding the swing producer's pool of resources to include the Iraqi reserves, and thus to include a reserve size capable of having meaning in the face of the increased demand the world is putting on oil production. SA by itself was never going to be able to put out 20+ million bpd. SA and Iraq can, after much investment, reach those numbers.

The fly in the ointment is; what happens if the re-entry fails? It could fail because of a military defeat or it could fail because SA is peaking and can't afford to wait for a decade for the US to win this thing. They might need help sooner and might be willing to cut a deal with the Iranians to split up Iraq only taking a little for themselves. Such a deal puts the Russians in charge. Iran is part of the Russian oil composite. Petro-euro would succeed petro-dollar. The US would be forced to face up to its debt accumulating ways.

[UncoveringTruths]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ews agencies report that U.S. officials have informed Saddam Hussein's lawyers that they have handed Hussein to Iraqi authorities, according to one of the lawyers.

[PolestaR]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/ ... index.html
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ormer Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has been executed, according to two Arabic language media outlets. Earlier, an Iraqi judge told CNN Hussein would be hanged before dawn on Saturday in Iraq, (10 p.m. Friday ET). The former president was convicted of crimes against humanity in connection with the killings of 148 people in Dujail.

[gego]

I saw one of the mainstream news sites comment that he was responsible for the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi citizens. What a wuss!

Hell, that's nothing compared to George Bush. He probably did more than three times that. We Americans can out do most of the world without even really trying.

[PolestaR]

Well a lot of U.S. presidents are worse than Saddam but will never get the treatment he did or others... winners justice.

[firestarter]

Why the hurry?

[PolestaR]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('firestarter', 'W')hy the hurry?