Wikipedia says that it did although it uses “largest”.
“Iraq still maintained a standing military of about 375,000 troops. It was during the late 80’s until 1991 the worlds 4th biggest, only beaten by USA, Soviet Union and China. In the 1980s and 1990s, Iraq had an arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. UN weapons inspectors probably destroyed all of them.”
‘Largest’ in no way implies strongest if it’s comprised of a bunch of unwilling conscripts (led by incompetents) with no discernible morale and especially as they didn’t have WMD’s (do try and keep up).
Of courese we are talking about after the FIRST Gulf War, after which they used WMD’s on the Kurds, do please try to keep up.
So you are. How remarkably pointless. Particularly when the Tsar of All the Russias has an army numbering millions.
Is that your way of saying; “oh sorry, I read that wrong”
The comments in context all make perfect sense (in my humble opinion), and the statement was that Iraq NEVER had that strength (after specifying before and during the first gulf war)
It’s my way of saying what’s the point of discussing the iraq army of 1991 in a thread concerning The Leader saving us all from terrorists practically single-handed.
Context
While that might make sense I do not think it works that way in practice. I seem to recall analysis of this sort of thing when the US would occasionally bomb Iraq post Desert Storm-I. The idea was Saddam was unpopular and on his heels. A bit more of a nudge and a few well placed bombs might just do the trick. In reality, when the country viewed themselves as under attack, support for Saddam grew.
The same would likely happen here. The premise being there would be time for finger pointing later. We are under attack now and need to form up and show solidarity.
Discussing the relative strengths of the world’s militaries has to include their access to nuclear warheads and delivery systems. There are nine nuclear powers at present (US, Russia, England, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, North Korea), and the first six can surely drop a nuke or ten onto just about any country they’d want to. That’s not saying some non-nuclear powers can’t be stronger militarily than some nuclear powers, but you’ve got to have a lot of conventional military strength to offset even a few nukes.
I don’t disagree; but you have to include biological and chemical munitions as well. If you put Isreal and North Korea on the list you should include Iran (since all there are speculation, though Isreal is all but confirmed). I’m also not convienced that France, England and/or Isreal can drop them anywhere they want (a lot of places sure, but they don’t have the Ballistic missiles required to reach anywhere, and the French and British have much more limited sub-based versions).
Going Nuclear (actually using any WMD) with the US, Russia (and some former soviet states), or China also shifts the conflict from war to something completely new (yes it would be a war, but not one you could even hope to outlast); which would keep most nutcases from even contemplating such actions (there are a few nutjobs that might push that button though, and from that list NK is a good bet).
Well, we must acknowledge one fact; there have been no more attacks on US soil. Is this because of Bush’s “war on terror”? Or is it becuse Al-quedah is unable to :
(1) infiltrate suicidally minded young Muslims into the USA
(2) finance these attacks by moving large amounts of cash across borders, etc.
(3) other factors?
Or is it because there is no benefit to another 9/11-type attack? I am w quite sure that if another attack on the scale of 9/11 were to take place, there would be a huge rally of support for Bush. thatis something Al-Quedah doesn’t want.
(4) Iraq has lots of easy-to-hit targets and is a lot closer?
Conversely, it could turn what little support Bush has against him, as the attack would demonstrate that the policies of the last few years were ineffective.
I seriously doubt attacks of any magnitude will shift anyone who has already formed an opinion.
At this point, only Bush and some very select people are the only ones who really know one way or another if the changes since 9/11 have really thwarted any attacks.
If another attack happened on the US, the same things that have happened with Bush would happend again:
Those who support him would say, “See! We need to be firmer and offer more resolve for the President! All those people saying bad things about him did this!”
And those against him would say, “See! All those secret wire taps and the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq were all for naught!”.
I tend to be of the mind that I’d rather have more to fear from terrorists than the gov’t so I’d rather not have broader gov’t powers in the name of security.
I think there are enough differences in that analogy to overcome the similarities between post 9/11 America and post '91 Iraq. Short of actually acquiring nuclear weapons (and perhaps not even then), no amount of planning or internal consolidation could have protected Saddam and Iraq from another Allied invasion or air assault. Here, improving security at certain key points has at least a chance at preventing or minimizing another terrorist attack. Thus, unlike Iraqis after '91 who realized that Coalition forces were more powerful than Iraqi forces and couldn’t do anything about it - here Americans expect their government to take pro-active measures and be forward-thinking.
Despite what I said above, I would agree with this if the terrorist attack were on a scale similar to or exceeding 9/11. If the attack was more like the 7/7 bombings in London last year, then I can’t see a “no consequences” push for solidarity and unity.
“Biggest” dosn’t mean strongest. Look at the equipment listed on the same page. Mostly soviet tanks and aircrafts dating back from the 50s and 60s (of course that’s the state of the army in 2003, but have you any reason to assume they had a significantly better equipment at the beginning of the first Gulf War?)
Besides, 375 000 soldiers isn’t really an impressive number. Maybe it meant Irak had the 4th largest army, but still in the same ballpark as many other countries.
By the way, remember that this “4th military power in world” had lost a war against Iran. Does it mean that Iran had the 3rd strongest military at this time?
Yes! Bush has saved us from terrorist attacks! Our national debt is sooooo sky high, which makes our economy and our dollar sooooo weak…Bin Laden et al. could simply buy and sell us 1000x over! Just remember how Reagan outspent Russia to defeat Communism! - Jinx
Jinx: Good work! There’ll be a little something extra added to this month’s check.
-The Republican National CommitteeI think this is the biggest benefit of the war in Iraq. It takes a lot of logistical support and training to infiltrate terrorists into the U.S. for 9/11 scale attacks. Even a much smaller effort (say, 4 or 5 suicide terrorists attacking a mall with machine guns) requires a lot of planning ( infiltrating terrorists well trained enough to blend into American society for at least a few days, arming those terrorists, deploying them to the target, etc…). That’s not to say that it couldn’t be done, it could be, but it is much, much easier to attack U.S. targets in Iraq where the terrorists understand the culture and speak the language; it’s also more or less on their “home ground” so to speak. The majority of U.S. targets in Iraq are military in nature, from a U.S. perspective it’s desirable for them to face terrorist attacks rather than civilians, that’s their job. Couple that with a vocal stateside anti-war movement, routine political maneuvering seeking to capitalize on this anti-war sentiment for domestic political power(which probably doesn’t seem so routine when viewed for a background where opposing voices to the government are crushed as a matter of course) and a press that loves to highlight and publicize every single terrorist attack in Iraq with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and it probably seems that the strategy of attacking U.S. targets in Iraq is quite effective from a terrorist’s POV. If we pack up and leave then they have won this battle. It’s easier, cheaper and seems to be effective. All of this is not to say that the terrorists don’t want to stage another attack on U.S. soil, I am sure they do and likely have dozens of plans to do so in the works, but it removes the sense of urgency. Al Queda has proven one thing, it can be very patient. It took 8 years between WTC attacks, I see no reason they wouldn’t be just as patient before making another one. The rotten side of this particular apple is that if they are willing to be patient, they are more than likely to try something really big when they attempt to come here again, likely some type of WMD in a heavily populated area.
Like hell it’s their job to be targets. :rolleyes: I doubt you’ll find many people in the military agreeing with that.
The guerrilla attacks on our people in Iraq aren’t just a fact of life as you suggest; they have causes and motivations, among which is that we’re occupying their homeland.
You don’t think it’s possible that people opposed to the war might really be opposed to the war? Or that reporting what’s happening in the war is the press’s job? :rolleyes:
And if we stay, we keep getting more of our “military targets” (aka people with lives and families, our people) killed. And for what? Are the terrorists dying off? Are the attacks lessening? Or are we just making new ones happen?
Well, you got that right, anyway.
And just how does getting our people blown to bits in the civil war in Iraq help prevent that?
He might as well say he’s keeping us from elephant stampedes. Have you seen any loose elephants lately?
Rush Limbaugh doesn’t count.