48 hours to topple Saddam

The elusive Osama bin Laden hangs over plans for an attack on Iraq, as military officials vow to prevent Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from evaporating as bin Laden did amid the onslaught of smart bombs rained on Afghanistan in the fall of 2001.

"We can't afford another repeat," a United States official told the London Times.
www.wnd.com...

The food drop idea worked SO WELL last time, hehe...
they will just burn it again...there is too much fear of Saddam in that country to spark a revolt...it simply won't happen. Finding and capturing Saddam will prove even more difficult than losing OBL...I wish them the best of luck...they'll need it... Body doubles, multiple hidey holes, bunkers, oh my... This war will be a PR nightmare, and spell the end of Bush's re-election chances (yay!), but unfortunately, it is a neccessary war in the longrun and will help avoid some future problems. Only problem is, if the war is successful, those problems will never occur, and so everyone will simply pick apart everything that goes badly in this war... I'd put money on it being quick, decisive, and that it will achieve the objectives...however, along the way, there will be little incidents (mosques and historic sites bombed because that's where the SCUDs are, accidental civilian casualties, etc.) that muck up international opinion, and especially the opinion of other Muslims who wrongly see this as an attack against Islam (which it isn't), not as deposing a tyrant...

I think there is good chance we will get Saddam quick.

In 1995 the CIA had a chance to eliminate Saddam with the help of insiders.(An Iraqi general I think)At the last minute Clinton called it off.(surpise)

Anyways,I suspect that something similar is going to happen now.I got a feeling the CIA and Special Forces have a pretty good idea how Saddam moves and where he is.

"at the last chance, Clinton called it off"



Does it ever end!?!?!

Look, we have this little old thing, a tradition if you will, of being the good guys, not snuffing people and not making them 'gone', you no?

About the 48 hour thing...... do you think Georgy Boy will EVER start talking about an EXIT STRATEGY!?!? Oh, I'm sorry, those happen in DECLARED WARS, not what we have here. And yep - er- ree Boy, that whole Congress granting him the whole shebang is still in breach of the Constitution!

It wasn't us that was going to do the killing.The Iraqis were going to take him out.The CIA just helped plan it.
That is what you want isn't it BT.Let the Iraqis do it.

The a good show on the History Channel about the 95 attempt.

"there is too much fear of Saddam in that country to spark a revolt...it simply won't happen."

er...hang on, I thought they did rise up and we sort of screwed them over...:

www.bbc.co.uk...

"In most of the cities in the south like Basra, because they're Shiite Muslims and they hate Saddam, they've tried to get rid of him. In 1991 Bush Senior said, "Rise up and get rid of Saddam". So they did and took seven cities in the south. Then Bush and the State Department suddenly thought, these are Shiite Muslims and if they take over they could team up with Iran and be anti-American and we won't get any oil and so on. So they let Saddam crush it and 30,000 people were killed by the end of that. "

different time, and different circumstances... Unlike the previous war...these same forces have now seen Saddam attacked by the US and allied nations, and REMAIN in power. Therefore, in THIS situation, there is more fear of him by those who would try to revolt. And yes, nobody wants to see it turn into another Shiite state...

I have only a limited understanding Of Iraq theology but as far as I recall its mainly Muslim, with a rough 50:50 split between Shiite and Sunni.

So, once you get rid of saddam, which of these two groups do you think should take over?

Presumably you wish to see a Sunni run country?

yes, you bet. They, unlike the Shiites, believe that the Jihad is a war of ideas...and do not take it to mean killing everyone who is not a Muslim. The Shiite's believe (from my experience) that the only good infidel, is a dead infidel.

so ok.....
You get rid of Saddam and place a Sunni government in Charge of Iraq...
don't you think the 12.5 million Shiites might get a little pissed about that?

I thought sunnis were the minority - plus the kurds to the north. Back to the original post - it's probably best Saddam is 'taken care of' at the very beginning of any conflict to avoid the bin laden syndrome.

"I thought sunnis were the minority"

well if thats the case then we'd be imposing a minority government...
from what I've read it seems unlikely the two groups would get together on amiable grounds so a mixed government seems unlikely.
hmmmmm...

Actually, while I'd prefer (myself) to have a Sunni government, I realize that it might cause inner conflict in the country....Thus, representatives from each (including Kurds, etc.) would have to be part of a new government. My jab was primarily at a Shiite-only run regime.

My understanding was about the same as Lupe's, being about 50-50 Shiite/Sunni, but I could be mistaken...regardless though, I doubt most want to see a Shiite-dominated regime...or we'll simply be going back again in another 12 years....likely sooner.

Its these questions and considerations which I feel are being overlooked and add a whole new dimension to this whole conflict.

everyone wants to get rid of Saddam
Hell ~I~ want to get rid of Saddam.

But what do we leave in its place and will it be more or less stable.

Every where I go I hear "we should bomb Iraq, we shouldn't bomb Iraq, but I see so little discussion about what we do afterwards.

Thats the crux of most of our protests.

Personally, I'd want to see what I just mentioned...a representative government comprising of the different peoples and ideas of the country. It's only because of the Shiite view of "kill all the infadels" as a policy of hatred, that I propose that they not make up the majority of such a government...