The main difference, lies in the number of enemies they have in the Muslim world. Saddam, has pissed off a lot more peole in the Islamic world than Osama. It is even possible to argue, more Muslims accept Bin Laden, that is why he has remained hidden. But Saddam, would likely fall to people within his own country, who are Muslim themselves. Of course, Bin Laden was neither more rich or powerful then Saddam.Thoughts?

No one is officially saying they want Saddam dead. Though it is hard to see Bush wracked by grief if he did accidentally walk into the path of a cruise missile.My own view is that not only will he not get killed in the current situation, but that he will be given asylum in a 3rd country, perhaps Russia or China. I simply find it so hard to see the USA actually fighting a real war where people shoot back. If has been nearly 30 years since the USA had a hard fight, which as you may recall it lost.Invading Iraq is harder than liberating Kuwait.Iraqi defences were vestigal, many were destroyed simply by bulldozing. Even a civilised country would have had difficulty throwing up a good defensive system that quickly. The Iraqis have now been preparing for a long time. If the Americans actually believe what they say about WOMD then it would not be too hard (say) to have chemical weapons buried at random places all over the probable attack routes. The Iraqi army is hard to measure.In the battle for Kuwait they fought like you would expect a gang of criminals to fight.However, against Iran they fought a higher tech version of WWI, for many years. They didn't win, but didn't buckle either, and to an extent the measure of an army's quality is how it behaves when things go badly. Under this test, Iraq looks quite formidable.American politicians simply cannot countenance serious losses.

QuoteOriginally posted by: DCFCAmerican politicians simply cannot countenance serious losses.Although this is the conventional wisdom, I'm not sure why. American politicians have countenanced serious losses before. Are things different now?

DCFC,Dead or captured, is what I mean. The main question I am asking, is catching Saddam going to be any easier, or more difficult then Bin Laden? And, since Bin Laden is still alive, and is arguably less powerful then Saddam (except in the number of enemies in the Muslim world, where Bin Laden arguably has less), how long will it take to capture Saddam.Another good comparison would be between Saddam and the old leader of the Taliban, Mullah Mohammed Omar. Obviously, Saddam is much more powerful. Ba'ath, just like the Taliban, has pissed off a great deal of the nation's population, while remaining oppressive and un-democratic. A stark difference would be, that Ba'ath is secular, while Taliban was theocratic (if even). Will Saddam be killed, captured, or deported sooner then Bin Laden?

I don't see how they are going to catch Saddam, he lives in my basement, together with Osama and.... Elvis.

i don't think anyone really cares about where Saddam ends up. It'd be nice to have a public trial of him for some political gains, but it's also a can of worms noone cares to open.In terms of if he could hide -- i don't believe it. Osama is a true believer and a true hero in a Muslim world. Look at his face, it's a face of an ancient Jewish prophet, people would follow the guy to the end of hell. Saddam is just a ruthless pervert, he'll be sold out for ten bucks if that's an award for his head.

American politicians have countenanced serious losses before. Are things different now?I believe so, obviously as a consequence of Vietnam. The events around the fillm "Black Hawk Down" in Mogadishu, although fictionalised show this rather too well.An elite unit of the USA came under fire from little more than a gang of armed robbers. American unit inflicted horrilble losses upon their foes, and defended a position whilst under the best attack the enemy could muster. Throughout the attack unit cohesion was retained and a group of troops with less combat experience retained discipline even when the slapstick shambles that the US is pleased to call its command structure lost the plot completely. Senior officers were not only getting their intelligence from CNN, but taking orders from it.The US then ran away, and the whole vast US presence retreated in disarray. In previous times, it would have counterattacked and imposed maximal losses. The fact that a small number of bodies were badly treated would have been a spur, not a deterrent.In numerical terms it was a US victory, in the real world a superpower was kicked senseless by a group whom the Iraqis would regard as pitiful.In Afghanistan where almost any action against Al-Q would have seemed reasonable, the US dithered for a long time, chucked a few bombs, then only sent in ground troops when there was no one to shoot back. As I recall more US troops were lost through crashes than enemy fire. This meant of course that people the US really wanted dead are still alive. If the US is not prepared to act under the most severe provocation, is it any suprise that Iraq is prepared to call its bluff ?

I do not know how much military experience you have, but I am a veteran of the US Marine Corps.Wars are fought and won in a completely different manner then pre Desert Storm. Air superiority is how you win wars and save lives (Americans and allies) today. There is no country, which could come close to matching US air superiority. Yes, true some civilian Iraqis will die but I would rather them die then our forces. Yes, true some of the bad guys will escape but not forever! If you pound the shit out of them like in Afghanistan or Bosnia the troops which survive will lose motivation and become depressed after awhile so when the ground troops do move in the majority will give up without to much of a fight.There are alot of political issues, which come up during CONFLICTS like Somalia. Troops cannot return fire unless they receive permission to do so and sometimes that permission comes from Washington directly. So image being shot at for ten minutes before you are given clearance to return fire! It's pretty shitty but it happens alot. Mogadishu was a cluster f*ck! But DCFC by no way should the US have retaliated for revenge like you suggest to save face.I am assuming the US wants Saddam died, but if he escapes to another country he needs to be careful because there are alot of Middle East countries, which would love to kill him, Iran is one for example! If he is captured and goes on trial alot of shit could come out which occurred during the 80s. I also assume the US provided Saddam with some type of chemical weapons during the 80's that’s one reason the US knows he has them but they will never omit to it. Just think of all the politicians President Bush Jr has surrounded himself with from his father's presidency. The shit could hit the fan if you know what I mean.The worst part about this situation is that chemical and biological weapons can come into play. Do you have any experience with them? I was a NBC instructor in the Corps and they aren't nice toys. Fighting a war with this threat is going to be really shitty. Try to image; but I am sure you cannot truly until you have done it, being in a NBC suit 24/7 in 120 degree heat. You know the real shitty thing about it is if they are used you need alot of water to decontaminate with and where do you think they will get it from in the middle of a desert??Only my nickel worth of comments!

FDAXHunter,Maybe Elvis will help us out.