Who will take to most casualties, US or Israel?

[Chuckiechan]

It is probably a good bet that if Saddam can find someone in the field to pull the trigger for him, something ugly is likely to land in Israel. What lands is anyone's guess. The question is: Does Saddam really have the cubes to use WMD's on them?

[daveleau]

I think he will do so to try to draw Israel into the war and then the US will lose all Arab support. This does not mean we should not attack though. We can try to use our Patriot missile system and other systems we have developed since 1991.

A shipment of weapons grade uranium was seized at the Turkey Iraq border on Friday. We need to strike and we need to strike soon or our forces and Israel will not be safe ever again.

[J-Excel]

He tried this in the Gulf War when he launched a Scud into Isreal. Isreal took a rain-check on the response.

Anybody else think the uranium foind in Turkey was planted to support an attack??? Or is it just me?

In my opinion, whatever support we have today (Saudi Arabia and a few moderate Gulf countries like Kuwait) is in words only.

When push comes to shove, I think they will never support the US.

Even so-called European allies like France/Germany may have a hard time justifying losing their soldiers in this forthcoming war. The US should not expect support. Whatever comes should be welcomed but it would be an error of judgement to think all countries stand ready to lose their soldiers for what is perceived as, primarily, a US cause.

It is extremely difficult for any country to justify loss of life for a cause not directly affecting them.

I also think Saddam is such a low life that he will hide behind women in the cities, making this conflict long and bloody. And, in any combat with soldiers fighting, there will be huge casualties on both sides including civilians.

But as Sen. John McCain (R) said this morning on CNN, this will be a price we will have to pay to preserve the American way of life.

[Lemon[H]ead]

IMO this is quite a sick thread "who will take most casualties", indeed

War is sick.

[Chuckiechan]

This is not a sick thread at all. During the first go-around, Sadam could have attacked while the US was building strength and caused many casualties. Instead, he waited until we had all of our forces in place and allowed us to wipe him out. War produces casualties and unexpected results, and is not for the faint-hearted which is why we employ generals with mission plans approved by our elected civilians.

There is no guarantee that this attack is going to be as easy as the other. If we mass men and material, there is a likelyhood of chemical & bio attack on our fixed positions. If this happens there is a 50-50 chance that a neutron bomb may be used as a demo on one one of Sadam's desert palaces. A bio or chemical attack will not go unanswered...

True, war is sick. But to lay down your arms hoping for a better tomorrow is lunacy .

[jokostel]

war is hell.... yes, but freedom dont come cheap my friends... its paid with BLOODSHED. pure and simple. Jokostel

Nuclear assaults by either side would be a grave mistake. I guess we already made the initial mistake back in 1945, though.

[Warthog]

Who will take the most casualities between Israel and the US? The US will have ground troops there, so that is my answer. If So-damn launches nukes at Israel? Holy sh*t...bye bye Baghdad, courtesy of Israel...

Who will take the most casualties overall? Iraq.