ThePest179

Of US nukes that may or may not exist They might be made of US material, but they do indeed have a nuclear stockpile.

As much as you would need would be too much for us, I can assure you. Such force would be the first in the world if it existed. They will have to use magic or some kind of Minority Report pre-cognition powers to do that because, normally, (depending on one's opinion) either the "terrorists" don't look like terrorists or everyone else looks like a terrorist in such circumstances. That is exactly the kind of things that recruits terrorists (aka freedom fighters). The more you do that the more they will come at you. I'm sure you played Half-Life 2 - when you see more Combine on the streets, does it make you have peaceful, lay-down-your-arms, peace-and-love-peace-and-love kind of feelings? But the civil war happened precisely when the Coalition forces already were in Iraq. And it actually started because the invasion destroyed the elements of state power that were keeping the civil war from starting. Regards So what you're saying is that simple security measures desighned to keep terrorts from killing people is going to make Iraqis resist in violent ways that ruins their country worse then it already is? The Combine rule through force and fear. In what ways have the Coalition mistreated Iraqis so badly that the majority would violently resist? I admit that the army I described above is unrealistic, but as I had previosly stated, an occupation of Iraq longer term would cause many terrorists to be either dead or detained. Unfortunatly we did not have the funds to continue our mission to rebuild Iraq, otherwise we should have stayed. A firm (or competant) Coalition would have stopped the civil war before it started. The main reason I belive the Coalition would have stopped a second civil war is because the Shiite and Sunni populations would be so caught up in killing each other that there would be little hope for them once the Coalition attacked both. Lastly, how would you know how much brutality would be needed to repress the terrorists?

They wouldn't last a week without US weapons. Once they're devloping their own nukes it'll be a different story. What are you talking about? Isreal HAS ITS OWN nuclear stockpile.

You don't need very much brutality in dealing with these terrorists. You only need to keep a strong, large force that is trained in locating and stopping the terrorists wherever they are. Security checkpoints and body search programs will slow things down in Iraq, but will be invaluble in preserving lives (which I remind you, is the reason Iraq was left for dead (pun not intended)). I also remind you, Coalition troops in Iraq (in my opinion) would have post poned Civil War.

Now I mentioned the civil war earlier, and it may resurface. if Coalition troops remained, fear of a civil war that would destroy Iraq in every sense might have been avoided or postponed.

It can, sometimes. Frontlines:Fuel of War has an example of that backfiring. I think here though, that might work. If lots of them die in these civil wars there won't be many ways it can backfire. One way it can is if the government gives their nerve gas to Hezbollah terrorists or attacks Isreal. Let's wait and see what happens first, before something hasty is done that we might regert later. EDIT: No-one is posting here any more. did I prove my point?

Technically - yes, but it would be a) pointless, b) expensive and c) politically suicidal. Regards I agree it would be expensive, but if the Coalition troops stayed in Iraq for decades, then most terrorists would eventually give up (or move).

Actually, there is some good. the civil war might cripple Syria for a long time and if your predition comes true, another civil war might set the country straight. What I'm getting at here is that war between muslims means less muslim to threaten the US and Isreal. I do wonder how you came up with that prediction/assumtion (or whatever you want to call it).

Iwould tend to think that removing Saddam the Americans would be seen as liberators that are bringing prosperity to an oppressed and damaged nation. Shows me for giving people ANY credit. Although my previous statements on how the terrorisim has decreased over years of occupation seems to me that they HAVE been accepted to varying degrees. For your second point on the clashes between groups, that could be solved be eliminating both groups unless they agree not to be a danger to each other (and to a lesser extent, a danger to civillians). An unthinkable solution would be to remove everyone from Iraq and "fill it back up" with people that can live there without killing each other. Of course it IS unrealistic and impossible. One point I wanted to adress initially (but got ignored) was that the Coalition troops in Iraq would be able to stay there for decades with the losses they were taking and the sheer number of troops they had.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(video_game)

But what will replace it? Regards There are several ansers to that. The government could be replaced by the opposition, which may create a democratic country, or something different. Assad may be replced by someone who may prosecute the war further or make peace. There's a diverse range of answers here. keep in mind the nerve gas stockpiles that could be used to change the war completly.

The war was lost before it has started. It is impossible to win a war without an objective. It is also impossible to win a war against an entire population of a country - so a double impossibility. History is littered with examples of it and yet the US blundered into not one but two impossible wars at the same time. Very clever. And how do you see that idea of stopping the terrorists? Which terrorists? Definition of terrorism requires them to operate on the home soil of the target country. I have not heard of many Iraqis or Afganis having been caught trying to commit an act of terror in the US. But even if they are there, how do you envisage stopping them though military intervention in their home countries? Do you think they may be supported, directed and funded by the governments of Iraq and Afganistan? Regards The objuctive was to (initially) to dispose Saddam and his (nonexistent) chemical weapons. After, it was to clean up the mess the US caused. The entire population was not for the terrorists (which were many factions that cannot be named, although some were Saddamists) as evidence by lack of support of the terrorists in recent years and the casulties of the new Iraqi security/police/army, which are 4x the coalition casulties. to stop the terrorists, one must first keep troops there to provide security and get Iraq to prosper economically, socially, and politically, although this has caused economic trouble here. That should keep the terrorism at a minimal. I have also come to understand some terrorists have attacked each other on religous beliefs, further degrading their own ablities. If the Iraqis were helping the terrorists en masse and/or the Coalition casulties were higher the situation might have called for a withdrawl, but I think the situation as it is/was needed more troops instead of less.

If I offended you that was not the intent. Iwas just frustrated when I saw the low casulties in comparison to the large number of Coalition troops. If you want to continue the "conversation" I would perfer to do it in the topic "Iraq War".

that's what I was trying to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTL:_Faster_Than_Light

up up, down down, left right left right, start

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fate_of_the_World

The occupation years are what I mean when I say "the Iraq War".

Angry families, dead soldiers, insane debt and the contempt and mockery from almost every single other country on this Earth. Least we finally stopped all this silliness and can move on. There were only 4700 dead soldiers in the Iraq War. That is a small number all things considered. The public overhyped each death as if each one were a suprise. Although I agree the Iraq War probably caused an insane finacial crisis that crippled the econemy.

To my knowledge there is no difference in either.

You're all being too pessimistic on this. just give it a few weeks

Try to imagine doing that in one of your examples.

Isreal is the buffer state for the US in the Middle East. That's its sole purpose.

I also forgot to mention the civil war from 2006-2008 that may resurface and ruin Iraq, the fact that Saddam would have been overthrown by his own people like in Libya and Syria, and the potential for Iran to control northern Iraq. the US has now created more problems then solved them. I personally thougth the US could make Iraq better if Coalition troops remained, and the US media had overhyped the casulties and crippled the hadling of the situation.

Looks like a new Stalin is comming to futher ruin this world.