Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II
Me neither. That wasn't even my main drive.
|
LOL....me neither.
Quote:
|
If Saddam cared about international laws, maybe he wouldn't have invaded Kuwait in the first place.
|
Yes, but...there's invading, then there is INVADING. You know, while he was at it, why didn't he call Chairman Mao a poopy pants and Yeltsin a drunk (wait a minute...he was). He already had his hands full and anyway, Saddams Republican Guard did penetrate into Saudi soil I believe with a view at possible capturing the oil fields....that's why they sent...top of my head...was it the 7th cav? I can't remember...not bothered looking it up.
Quote:
|
If he wins (gets Saudi oilfields and the like), then he would probably have enough geopolitical power to temporarily deter his enemies, much as they hate him, and he'd have enough of the oil to make even the West cautious. If he loses, it doesn't matter either way. Militarily, I'd much prefer having some Arabs about to attack me than the United States.
|
See post above...the scenario is a bit far fetched considering you're back to square one, because if he "wins", presuming he wants to keep the oil fields, he'll have to dig in....and be vulnerable to airstrikes.
Quote:
|
They were plenty vulnerable enough anyway. Might as well try attacking. That is, by the way, what the Soviet air defense systems (his SA-6s and -8s) they had were meant to do - defend an advancing force for a relatively limited period of time until it finishes its objective (or so the plan stipulates). Not sit there for two months while planes with equipment their successors were designed to hopefully match bomb them.
|
Yeah but that's with hindsight...Saddam was certain his T-72s could give the Abrams a fight...though everyone was convinced it would be a one-sided one, nobody would've put money on it being a massacre. Same with the Apache's and then you had the hype about his being the "4th largest army in the world, 1 million men blah blah". Who knew...
Quote:
|
The B-2 wasn't in service yet in 1991, pal. Sorry. The B-1B and B-52 can do so, but they don't have PGMs so their accuracy will be low. The B-52 will likely be relegated to firing cruise missiles. The B-1B - there are only 100 of them, and they are only semi-stealthy.
|
Not I mentioned the Iraq War in the same sentence.
Quote:
And the best part is ... the American system will be incomplete, while their's would be in the best possible state. This gives them a much better chance - certainly far better than the one they actually had, which was to let the Americans complete their set piece and employ their Superpower grade System in all its glory versus a Third World Regional grade System...
Since you are qualifying your statement in such a way, what are we arguing over. Even though our reasons are slightly different, I'm not disagreeing with you on this general point.
|
Ok then...now back on topic...NO LONG RANGE MISSILES FOR THE US NAVY?
