War on Iraq, worst case scenario

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-10-14 09:05pm

I really don't know what Shrub, Asscroft, and Bumsfeld are thinking. We all know that even the best case scenario involves thousands of lives lost and no real gain (unless you consider killing Saddam and letting someone even more radical take his place a gain), but I'm not sure how many have considered the worst case scenario. Unfortunately, unlike many worst case scenarios, it seems to be as likely as any of the others. Consider this:

1. It is pretty likely that Saddam does, in fact, have chemical and biological weapons, and although he doesn't have the will or the means to attack the U.S. with them, when he sees troops coming in to kill him and he knows his time is up, all bets are off. He'll use whatever he has. But the question is, who does he use them against if he can't hit the U.S.? He'll use them against Israel, who else?

2. The Israelis have promised no holds barred assault if Iraq does that, and I don't doubt it for a minute, given their history. So so far we have Saddam unleashing NBC weapons on Israel and Israel retaliating, which constitutes an attack on the entire Islamic world.

3. Other Islamic countries attack Israel.

4. U.S. backs Israel against every fucking country in the Middle East.

5. World War III.

Scary, isn't it?

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-14 09:09pm

If Saddam used chemical weapons, we would nuke him silly. Period.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-10-14 09:11pm

So? We're gonna kill him anyway, what's he got to lose?

EDIT: Plus the stuff EJ mentioned.

Evil Jerk · Post by **Evil Jerk** » 2002-10-14 09:11pm

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:If Saddam used chemical weapons, we would nuke him silly. Period.

With American troops there?
Besides, wouldn't that hinder the oil barons moving in afterwards?
That is why the US is really invading, after all.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-14 09:15pm

We would use tactical nuclear weapons. And Saddam could escape if he wanted to rather than risk nuclear annihilation.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-10-14 09:17pm

Escape!?! Where the fuck is he going to go? This isn't Osama and his cave hiding crew we're talking about, it's someone living in one of the places we're bound to have surrounded!

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-14 09:19pm

Yes that we WILL have surrounded. He could escape anytime BEFORE we invade. Not when our forces ARE invading him.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2002-10-14 09:21pm

I do think you're rather pessimstic. In a best case scenario, Iraq is overrun very quickly with minimal loss of life. That's slightly more likely than WW3

Evil Jerk · Post by **Evil Jerk** » 2002-10-14 09:22pm

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Yes that we WILL have surrounded. He could escape anytime BEFORE we invade. Not when our forces ARE invading him.

This is assuming he's a sensible man, and not a maniacal egotist who's lost every war he's ever fought but still survived and probably think's he'll survive this one too.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-10-14 09:24pm

In the twenty years Saddam Hussein has spent in office (10 as our ally and 10 as our enemy), why is it that within the last few months, he has magically become a threat to the U.S., with the "power to kill every single person in the world through biological warfare" (I am not making this up, someone actually wrote a letter to my University paper suggesting this today)? It amazes me how stupid and mindless the American people can be.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-14 09:26pm

This is assuming he's a sensible man, and not a maniacal egotist who's lost every war he's ever fought but still survived and probably think's he'll survive this one too.

Then why would he use chemical weapons in an all-out last-ditch effort to kill as many people he hates as possible?

Evil Jerk · Post by **Evil Jerk** » 2002-10-14 09:28pm

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:
This is assuming he's a sensible man, and not a maniacal egotist who's lost every war he's ever fought but still survived and probably think's he'll survive this one too.
Then why would he use chemical weapons in an all-out last-ditch effort to kill as many people he hates as possible?

I didn't say he'd use chemical weapons, just that he won't escape until it's too late because his ego's to big for that.
Frankly I don't think he HAS significant amounts of chem/bio weapons to use, it's US propaganda as an excuse to get his oil, that's all.

IRG CommandoJoe · Post by **IRG CommandoJoe** » 2002-10-14 09:30pm

Well, it'll all be cleared up when our news reporters go there to find out after we invade. LOL

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-10-14 09:30pm

Evil Jerk wrote:This is assuming he's a sensible man, and not a maniacal egotist who's lost every war he's ever fought but still survived and probably think's he'll survive this one too.

A maniac can't stay in power for twenty years. A sensible man he is not, but he is not a maniac, that's for sure.

Arthur_Tuxedo · Post by **Arthur_Tuxedo** » 2002-10-14 10:25pm

Durran Korr wrote:A maniac can't stay in power for twenty years. A sensible man he is not, but he is not a maniac, that's for sure.

Seems pretty sensible to me. Sure, he's got his right-wing religious views, but a lot of people have those views without being maniac war-mongers like Asscroft, Rumsfeld, and Bush. Saddam seems to be doing pretty well financially and achieving his goals, what makes you think he's not sensible?

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-10-14 10:28pm

Worst case scenario is while we are occupying Iraq, and pretty much ignoring Afghanistan, Pakistan falls to extremists who now have a nuclear weapon.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2002-10-14 10:39pm

Arthur Tux:

You obviously don't know the meaning of "best" case scenareo. Like what has ALREADY happened in Afghanistan. Best estimate of civilian death toll, by UN numbers, 500/2000 dead, less than 25 US troop deaths. (This is less than the death toll from TRAFFIC accidents, to US soldiers, every year!)

Worst case scenario, Israel gets into the fray, and the "whole" middle east goes into war mode. The "whole" middle east? I don't think so. Only Syrria/Lebanon, (One and the same since the Syrrian occupation) and MAYBE Egypt, will mix it up. Iran wants NONE of the whoop ass that Isreal has, and HATES Iraq tyo boot! Same with the craven Saudis. Jordan?, don't make me laugh. Who else wants some? Yemen, Kuwate, Libia, United Arab Emirates, Qutar? I don't think so.

As to the chemical casualties, that is up in the air. Saddam will not be pulling the trigger himself, and the psy-ops program is well under way, telling the Iraqi commanders, that if they use chemicals, then they can look forwards to a war crimes trial, and a hanging. Will they be loyal to the very end, or will they bail out of the sinking ship?

The use of germs, by loyalists, or Al Quiada in the area is the most disturbing possibility.

If the last war was any clue, they will surrender to drones and cameramen.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2002-10-14 10:39pm

Screw the Middle East; I actually have some confidence that one day it will work out all its problems. I'm not saying this day will come soon, but I believe it will come. Pakistan and India, however, would probably nuke each other into oblivion before making peace...

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2002-10-14 10:43pm

Trailerparkjawa:

Should the Pakistani government fall, India might settle their hash, and the USA would, to avoid the spread of nukes to nuts.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-10-14 11:37pm

I dont understand what you mean by settle their hash?

I bet India would intervene in some way. Its just during those critical few hours something bad could happen.

Actually, I threw that idea out as a warning about unforseen consequences.

I bet in reality a IRAQ invasion will have few casulties, most other nations will sit by and watch, but the toll on the American economy will be brutal.

EmperorChrostas the Cruel · Post by **EmperorChrostas the Cruel** » 2002-10-14 11:39pm

Settle their hash is oldtimerspeak for a settling of acounts, with violence.
Used in noir gangster movies.

Stuart Mackey · Post by **Stuart Mackey** » 2002-10-14 11:49pm

Saddam has stayed in power by being more cunning and nasty than the other guy, and this attitude leads into his foreign policy. Sure he makes stupid mistakes, like invading Kuwait and Iran, but he survived that. I do not see this nonsence as being any different.
Saddam likes power too much to challenge America face to face because he knows he must lose, ultimatly he will not give the US the excuse to invade.
So I think we can forget about him useing B/C weapons or anything of the sort agianst anyone.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2002-10-15 12:05am

Durran Korr wrote:Screw the Middle East; I actually have some confidence that one day it will work out all its problems. I'm not saying this day will come soon, but I believe it will come.

I doubt it. These are people who still make reference to 3000 year old land claims! They're too fucking dogmatic and irrational to ever make peace. And worse yet, their dogmatic irrationality tends to rub off on people outside the region who care too much bout one side or the other (it's really quite fascinating to see how people in secular humanist nations can rant about the moral imperative for a racial hierarchy in Israel and not see the contradiction). It's like a goddamned contagion.

Pakistan and India, however, would probably nuke each other into oblivion before making peace...

I put the blame entirely on Pakistan for that conflict. Religious separatism is evil, plain and simple. It has never led to anything remotely constructive in any way.

EmperorMing · Post by **EmperorMing** » 2002-10-15 12:09am

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:If Saddam used chemical weapons, we would nuke him silly. Period.

Our policy is to retaliate in kind...

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2002-10-15 12:20am

If he used Chemical Weapons but it does not kill any troops, which it might not if they are ready for it. Then I doubt we would nuke'em. Even if he did kill a hundred or two hundred, I still doubt we would nuke'em or use chemicals of our own.

If he managed to kill large number of civilians, then that might be different. but Im still not sure. For the US to invade Iraq then use our own WMD's even if they are in response to an Iraqi use, would probably still be viewed very poorly on the world stage.