The Iraq War has cost 3 trillion dollars

Was the Iraq War worth the cost (3 trillion)?

  • Total voters
    0
#228
#228
vader said:
Since the thread has totally been hijacked, what do you plan to study?
Click to expand...

I am starting with a Comm Studies major, and I am seriously considering getting into broadcast. If I go another route, political science and public admin looks like where I will go.
 
#235
#235
Shouldn't I be scholar of the week? I can discuss matters of historical, geographical, and political consequence much better than emain!!!
 
#244
#244
It's after the fact of course but I've always been curious how a switch to "military inspections" would have turned out. Basically, when we had stand-off weapons (tomahawks, etc) already set for the structure/area to be inspected. We get immediate total access to inspect whatever/wherever/whenever or, quite simply, we blow it up. Call it "inspect or destroy". Seems like it would have been a bridge between invading and inspection compliance and would have shows a last ditch effort on our part to uphold UN sanctions without having to put boots on the ground.

Ah well, just something I'd played "what if" with.
 
#247
#247
hndog609 said:
It's after the fact of course but I've always been curious how a switch to "military inspections" would have turned out. Basically, when we had stand-off weapons (tomahawks, etc) already set for the structure/area to be inspected. We get immediate total access to inspect whatever/wherever/whenever or, quite simply, we blow it up. Call it "inspect or destroy". Seems like it would have been a bridge between invading and inspection compliance and would have shows a last ditch effort on our part to uphold UN sanctions without having to put boots on the ground.

Ah well, just something I'd played "what if" with.
Click to expand...

hitting a chemical weapons depot with conventional munitions isn't a smart thing to do. You might as well nuke the site and the contamination won't last as long.

Also, in the run up to the start of the conflict, Saddam disallowed U2 overflights. It was during those periods that I think that much of his capability was moved to Syria. Our technological advantage is significant, but we can't blanket a country the size of Iraq with electronic surveillance.
 
#248
#248
MG1968 said:
hitting a chemical weapons depot with conventional munitions isn't a smart thing to do. You might as well nuke the site and the contamination won't last as long.

Also, in the run up to the start of the conflict, Saddam disallowed U2 overflights. It was during those periods that I think that much of his capability was moved to Syria. Our technological advantage is significant, but we can't blanket a country the size of Iraq with electronic surveillance.
Click to expand...

Hate to sound kinda cold but that is precisely the outcome that would result in unmasking Saddam's WMD program. (assuming he had one) His refusal to let us search the site to begin with would also place the onus of whatever damage took place on Saddam. Of course he'd spin it, we used chemicals weapons to frame him yadda yadda but it would be a matter of UN record we were denied access to X site before bombing it.

Anyway, like I said, moot now. Might be something to consider in future scenarios though.
 
#249
#249
No one has discussed that the majority of Iraqi's (65%) are Shiite Muslims, as are the majority of Iranians (90%). In the future, they are natural allies.

The Shiites of Iran and Iraq will become the dominant political force in the region and will be Israel's largest enemy. Still have trouble understanding how a Shiite controlled Iraq was in the U.S. national interest.....
 
#250
#250
MG1968 said:
hitting a chemical weapons depot with conventional munitions isn't a smart thing to do. You might as well nuke the site and the contamination won't last as long.

Also, in the run up to the start of the conflict, Saddam disallowed U2 overflights. It was during those periods that I think that much of his capability was moved to Syria. Our technological advantage is significant, but we can't blanket a country the size of Iraq with electronic surveillance.
Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan knew the best way to handle dictators Like Saddam. Look at the way he handled the situation with Libya and Kadafi. He sent a very strong message with an air strike of his homes, almost killing him. IMO that is what Bush should have done. There was no need for an invasion, a simple air strike trying to take Saddam out would have sent the message and been a better alternative then an expensive, demoralizing occupancy.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top