23-08-2002 22:08									#61
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Terrorists can't win against a dictatorship, that's why China and USSR never had problems with them. Dictatorships can engage in options that a democracy can't imagine:
- Suicide bombers? No problem, we'll just execute your entire family or sent them to Gulags.
- Villages or towns hiding/collaborating with terrorists? Raze the place like in Civ3.
- Uncooperative suspects or witnesses? A little torture will do the job.
- An ethnic group causing trouble? Lock all of them up.
- Possible innocents accused? Former Chinese dictator Chiang Kai-Chek once said that he would rather execute 100 innocents than to let 1 communist escape. Well, we are more humane than him and would be satisfied with a 2:1 ratio.

A dictatorship, especially a dictatorship in a powerful country, usually beats down the terrorists. However, the problem now becomes that the TERROR COMES from the GOVERNMENT.

In the worst case scenario, you have to pick the poison: terror from foreign terrorists or your own government.

	23-08-2002 22:26									#62
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Terrorists can't win against a dictatorship, that's why China and USSR never had problems with them

Afghanistan?

	23-08-2002 22:36									#63
	Remove this text

I think you need to define exactly what "winning" means.

Does ANYBODY think the Iraqi armed forces will last more then a few day vs a US attack?

	23-08-2002 22:36									#64
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Lord Merciless Terrorists can't win against a dictatorship, that's why China and USSR never had problems with them.

That's so not true. The CIA sponsored terrorist activities against both countries for decades. Have you ever heard of the Chinats? Tibetan and Chinese nationalists recruited by the CIA, trained in Colorado, armed, and sent into Tibet and Southern China to wage guerilla war. In the USSR fomer Soviet natioanls were sent back in with missions to committ assassinations, burn buildings, destroying power and communication lines, destroy bridges and railways, etc. This was one of the major causes of Societ inefficieny. It's hard to be efficient when much of your stuff is being destroyed.

	23-08-2002 22:52									#65
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 I think you need to define exactly what "winning" means. Does ANYBODY think the Iraqi armed forces will last more then a few day vs a US attack?

If it comes to an urban war, and if the Iraqi army fully backs Saddam, then yes, they could conceivably hold out much longer. I'll grant you, even though the first situation is likely, the second is a big if.

Of course, any fighting out in the open desert would be a slaughter......

	23-08-2002 22:55									#66
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Can't see a way Iraqi forces would try for a urban war, nor would the US need to fight one.

Simply cut off any large city and watch it starve.

	23-08-2002 23:07									#67
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That's great in theory, but I highly doubt the US would engage in seige tactics. The government is already pushing that they want to go after Saddam, not the Iraqi people. Rest assured, the US will actively pursue Saddam, not sit and watch hundreds of thousand of people starve to death.

	23-08-2002 23:13									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Don't agree, nor is it needed.

I have a strong feeling that as soon as the invasion starts, he will run like a rabbit and his military will surrender faster then a frenchmen to a german.

	23-08-2002 23:15									#69
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Chris 62 his military will surrender faster then a frenchmen to a german.

Is such a thing even possible?

	23-08-2002 23:16									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I doubt the Republican guard will surrender. They probably have a good idea what will happen to them if they get turned over to the Iraqi people.

	23-08-2002 23:17									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Look at the last war Che, they had their hands in the air quick, they are "elite" in name only.

	23-08-2002 23:19									#72
	Put an end to popups!

The RG ran away mostly. The people you captured were mostly conscripts according to the media (reported about a year after the war).

Anyway, it's not about being elite or not, it's about fearing retribution from the Iraqi people they've been terrorising. I'm thinking like the way the Securitate went down fighting in Romania.

	23-08-2002 23:22									#73
	Increase Your PM Length

Nope, no way.

They would take their chances with the civilian popualtion, knowing the US would stick around to protect them, rather then face certain death fighting an enemy with superior firepower.

Only a fool or a fanatic would fight in such a scenario, and I bet they are neither.

	23-08-2002 23:26									#74
	Inflate your Upload Space

Is there any chance Iraq could get any serious military assistance from any of the other Arab nations in the region? Certainly, it may not be prudent to get on the United States' bad side in this situation, but muslim fundamentalism rarely knows prudence. There is a lot of fear and resentment toward the US in that region right now.

	23-08-2002 23:28									#75
	Support Apolyton

That would mean the help would have to cross open terrain, in the face of US airpower.

Who is going to be dumb enough to do that during a shooting war?

	23-08-2002 23:33									#76
	Full PM-box? Change here!

No country would give overt support to Iraq, but I could definitely see some people from other states going to Iraq pre-invasion to offer support in defense (again, not in the open, but more as "bodyguards"). I don't imagine for a second that there is much love for Saddam in the region, but I'm sure many prefer him to the US.

	24-08-2002 01:56									#77
	Tired of ads?

If it all comes down to a real war (ie: like WWII...):

Many, many pan-Arabs/pan-Muslims will go to Iraq as volunteers, ie: cannon fodder.

Expect more terrorist attempts in the U.S./participating countries (Britain?) either during the attack or immediately after.

Either the Republican Guard makes a "strategic retreat" (they wish) into another country via some remote region of Iraq (probably with Saddam in tow), or they stay and get killed, obviously not surrendering but giving the cannon fodder a reason to fight too.