Anti war protests harden resolve of enemies causing more death.

[Epidemic]

Anti war protests cause more deaths if they continue into the war.

The enemy knows that political support will fail if enough horrific pictures and stories are circulated. This knowledge will make it easier for them to try and weather the storm.

They say to themselves. All we have to do is spread out dig in and wait for politicians personal ideals to be superceded by political aspirations.

I believe this is what happened in vietnam to a large extent.

[reticent]

Well, this is far from a guaranteed war. It is a determined war effort, but there are several things that would stop it.

War protesters have every right to speak their voices. One thing I have heard many say is that we are trying to take their freedom of speech away when we slam them in the press or in discussions. This couldn't be farther from the truth. Speaking out in disagreement and speaking out to get your point across and quieting the response to their cries is exactly the way the first amendment is supposed to work.

Do they strengthen resolve of the enemy? I don't think a conscripted, low supplied, human rights deprived army in the middle of the desert is going to be uplifted by much, especially when the bombing begins. In Afghanistan and Iraq (version 1), they gave up and were quoted as saying they couldn't take another minute of the incessant bombing. While they do make the US look bad (which the human shield people are trying to make happen), they do little else. Military planners know that these human shields are not going to be placed near targets of real consequence. Saddam is too untrusting for that. He would suspect that we planted spies. These people (some say it is 10 million- I say "hogwash!") will be housed in the palaces and hotels of Iraq and are doing nothing but wasting their time.

Make the war pointless.

This morning I saw a faint glimmer of hope that the war may be averted if they find that there is 80% compliance to UN Resolutions.

I doubt it though.

Bush is too committed.

No face-saving device left for him to back off now.

So, lets see what happens and whether it'll be a 10 day wham-Bam war or another Vietnam type conflict with no end.

[Epidemic]

Well as far as letting the voices be heard, I agree you should not styfle them. Freedom of speech and all. However, I want them to think about the likely ramefication of their action. Will they end up saving lives (which is their stated goal) or will they end up costing lives.

They need to know that they will be used by Saddam to rally the troops and supporters to stick it out. If he spreads his troops out through out bagdad in random individual civillian housing our bombs will only reduce air defenses and armor. But when our troops come by foot Iraqi's will be on an even footing in general.

M16 vs AK47 the war would take years to even make a dent in his troops. Sniper urban warfare is the most scary of alternatives. It could take days to clear a block unless you target the civillian housing.

Under those conditions war protesters would give a huge moral boost to the troops. That is assuming that the people and troops support SH or not.

Styfleing voices will not achieve anything. You'd just create a dictatorship state with internal dissent. Ramefiction of the action could be war is averted. That will save lives. Unless you use the old perverted argument that we killed 10,879 people but saved a million.

Baloney!!

Tell that to the innocent victims' families in Hiroshima/Nagasaki.

If it turns out to be urban warfair it will be terrible for the Iraqis as they will die unnecessarily due to cowardice of the Army and it will be bad for US troops because they will face hand-to-hand combat. Don't know how they will face that because they are conditioned to think it'll be a war fought using hi tecknology.

AK47 are ancient weapons. Do Iraqi soldiers still use them?

One thing for shure--this war will be fought as much on media (CNN) as in actual battlegrownd.

[Epidemic]

Shahani,

US troops have fought urban combat as recently as the samolia incedent. It was fought bravely and with very low tech methods. The troops are up to it.

AK-47 is a fine weapon, reliable relatively accurate and carries many many buwwets. Nothing wrong with it. It is not like the us rifles are all that much better. I mean we are not talking about muskets here.

You squeeze trigger bullet comes out followed by another bullet coming out and so on. it is a fine weapon and very effective.

State of the art guns do not offer much of anything besides weight in a real combat arena. We reached the zenith of gun technology about 40 years ago generally speaking with respect to cartriage based guns and ammo.

The old tired argument of Nuking hiroshima is just as valid now as then.

You would not sacrifice 10,000 people for a guaranteed saving of 1,000,000. I would in a heart beat. Just think about the million peoples families pain. It is simple math.

The more that die the more pain that is felt. losing your family member may be horrible but when looking at things from the high levels you must make the decision to kill the few to save the many. If you will not make such a decision you are not fit for leadership. You would be too short sighted.

That of course is speaking from the perspective of the scenario listed above. There are alternatives in some situations.

Do you think the SWAT team taking out a few hostages when they were likely to die anyway is a bad thing. The thirty hostages saved for the one hostage killed is better. Unless there was a high likelyhood of the release of all. then you must make the call either way based upon intel available at the time.


Tell that to the innocent victims' families in Hiroshima/Nagasaki

Tell the innocent victims of a land based assault on japan.

Tell them that they did not have to die and that in fact the war could have stopped months and years earlier for the sacrifice of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Ask those families what should have been done.