America can't handle Iraq. We do not have what it takes.

[Epidemic]

IMO.

The last video report that I saw from sadam indictest to me that he has learned a few lessons to date.

He clearly stated that he will not fight us in the desert, rather he would take his 400,000 troops into the cities.

In todays warfare there is no way to prosecute a war such as this with out incurring the rath of the world. Such a war would yield millions of so called innocent victims.

I also believe that the media displaying the war footage as it happens and the body count would break the resolve of so many in the states.

The media also would be more than happy to clearly define the troop movements and battle plans with the world. The media has no loyalty. At least most of the media does not.

We have the ability to do it but I do not think we have the drive yet. Too many liberal live and let live'rs running around.

I fear if we go into bagdad/ iraq, we will run another limited war and as such will kill many of our young for no purpose.

All out war we would win. But a drawn out ***** footing politically driven war will be a disaster.

War should be fought all out or not at all is what history seems to indicate to me.

No way Bush can do an all out war. Political suicide in todays global environment.

No political will in this country.

[caddmannq]

Welll...he could do it. But he'd have to take it like a man...

Remember the Alamo, G.W.!

[Epidemic]

Shahani,

My point exactly. But to fight in the streets of bagdad you would need to.

I do not see how you can wage a limited war in bagdad.

Can you say vietnam or simply flat out loss because politicians would reign in the troops prior to mission completion again.

[Epidemic]

The Alamo is a simpler rallying cry in the days before TV and an anti-patriotic press.

There was also the fact that the enemy who attacked the Alamo was the same as the enemy we attacked. Not to say that Sadam is innocent but the links to him are purely circumstantial.

Finally there are those in America who think that we cannot kill a single civilian in the prosecution of a war. Nice thought but not practical. Especially when much of the army you fight wears civillian garb.

Can you say lets hide our troops here because we know they will not blow up these civilian human shields.

If I had to decide, I'd do the full all out war - and face the consequences. Atleast we'd get rid of Saddam/Terrorists and more importantly, send a strong signal to Arabs everywhere-You can run but you can't hide.

Consequences of not taking firm action will be catastrophic in the long run.

But I fear GBW is a wimp at times.

[caddmannq]

Yeah, but he's a Texan wimp and they can still be pretty dang tough.

Perhaps he should just tell Saddam to pick a spot. Put your army there, because thats what we're gonna bomb.

Put them in the desert, we bomb the desert.
Put them in Baghdad, we bomb Baghdad.

Choose now, Saddam Hussein. Choose how many of your people will die.

[ClubMed]

CM: You know me better than that. I DO NOT mean all Arabs. 99% are good people. I mean the Arab regimes whether in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Iraq.

These Arab royalty also need a strong message. Not only the military. Because they are the sneaky types.

Texan Wimp

Yup. You know my errrr....affinity for Texans.
Beer-spit joke!!

He may be wimpish sometimes, but he's not a wimp.

[ClubMed]