The Battle of Baghdad - Page 2

MrBaggins · January 31, 2003, 11:49

because they'll funnel the 'charity' towards personal gain and/or terroristic use.

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 11:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Barley
Why not invest the $billions youll spend on saving lives by building heathcare infrastructure in the Middle East or Africa?

Because you'd lose the elections

Harovan · January 31, 2003, 11:49

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBaggins
When push comes to shove... and victory is won... the ney-sayers will be noticably silent.

Nobody doubts, that the US will win this war. This doesn't make it justified. And the "nay sayers" won't be silent, because the warmonger in the White house will push for the next war very soon.

TheStinger · January 31, 2003, 11:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Stinger :
The problem is that many anti-US leaders want the Arab population to think it is about religion or clash of cultures. Each tiem the US will wage war to a muslim (and even more to an Arabic) country, the hate against the US will progress, whether the objective reasons have to do with religion or not.

I agree, but you shouldn't change your policy because other people say it is somethin it isn't.

If Iraq is invaded and a democratic government is set up that will prove them wrong

Harovan · January 31, 2003, 11:52

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
If Iraq is invaded and a democratic government is set up that will prove them wrong

Like that in Afghanistan?

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 11:53

silly lance - we already had a thread on this topic see "standoff at Bagdad" - no wonder its turning into another political thread instead of the military strategy thread he wanted.

Quick responses - US knows war is ugly - if we didnt we would have taken out Saddam years ago - oil and hegemony are no more important to us now than they were in the '90s.

The battle of Bagdad will probably be ugly - but its the job of the military leaders and planners to make it less ugly - how to do that is, I think, what some here were trying to discuss.

The goals in the battle of Bagdad must not be only to minimize US/coalition casualties, but also to minimize civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure - if we are to make this a victory in our long term war on terror/war with islamic radicalism.

In liught of this i dont think carpet bombing will be an option, except in places where we know the civilians have all fled (expect a major psyops campaign to get civilians to flee Bagdad) We will face more like the Israeli problem in Jenin - going door to door - in a larger city - but iwht advantages the Israelis didnt have - a much less motivated enemy, and less hostile civilian population (which will be more willing to flle the city) and of course much greater resources. And the beneifts of learning from the Israeli experience.

MrBaggins · January 31, 2003, 11:53

The nay-sayers will be silent *ABOUT IRAQ* though... and its a little to early to judge if they'll be another war closely following this one.

SlowwHand · January 31, 2003, 11:55

The U.S. wants nothing to do with the area, afterwards.
When last we tossed Hussein out of Kuwait, did we ask for oil? Occupy?
No.

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 11:58

Sloww : didn't you predict W. would go to Iran right next ?

SlowwHand · January 31, 2003, 12:01

I didn't predict anything about Iran.
Bush said in his State of The Union he wants to see a Democratic process in Iran.

What I predicted was encounters involving China and Japan.

Ecthy · January 31, 2003, 12:04

good luck in any Beijing "encounter"

DinoDoc · January 31, 2003, 12:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
Like that in Afghanistan?

Iraq isn't as poor as Afghanistan nor does it have the same tradition of warlordism.

SlowwHand · January 31, 2003, 12:06

Where have you been ?!?!?

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 12:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

Like that in Afghanistan?

You mean if the majority of the population clearly thinks the govt the US puts in place is better than the one we toss out, but the one we put in place is able to directly rule only abotu 25% of the country and has limited authority in the rest of the 75%, like in afghanistan??? it will probably convince a few of the nay sayers but not most. Thats life.

If we were to have situation much better than in afganistan that would convince many more naysayers, but by no means all. The hardcore nay sayers arent concerned with either democracy or stability in Iraq - theyre worried about US global hegemony - we could turn Iraq into paradise, if iraq becomes an ally to US power thats a bad thing if youre worrried about US hegemony.

Willem · January 31, 2003, 12:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Aren't Vietnam veterans opposed to the upcoming slaughter btw ?)

Alot of them are yes. Even "Storming Norman", who led the charge in Desert Storm is against it. CNN just had an interview with him and he flat out said there was no justification at this time.

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 12:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Isn't it actually normal for people to die in war ? Wait, only foreigners do, that's right

I will not be sympathetic to US soldiers during the battle of Baghdad. The US government and most of the US population wants to go to war, so American mothers should be prepared to mourn their children, as much as Iraqi mothers.

War is ugly. When you'll suffer from it in your family, maybe you'll understand why so many people are opposed to it.

Sorry if I sound rude, but I hate the whole "land of the brave" speech, when the land of the brave is attacking defenseless countries with no losses. If the "land of the brave" loses thousands of young men who had a great potential in the future, maybe it'll understand what war is about.
(Well, it understood for more than 15 years after Vietnam. Aren't Vietnam veterans opposed to the upcoming slaughter btw ?)

If youre worried about US hegemony , you should hope for LOW US casualties in Iraq. In retrospect the US seems to have been weakened by the victory in Kosovo. It convinced many, apparently including Osama Bin Laden, that the US cant and wont take casualties. That, combined with out withdrawls after suffering casualties in Beirut and Somalia seems to have been the basis for his strategy (provoke the US into an attack on afganistan, rouse the afghan nation against the infidel invader, and take enough US casualties so that we run again) If the US is bogged down in a quagmire that could of course have a Viet Nam effect - but if the US wins a relatively quick victory, but at the cost of 1000 or more casualties, that will probably not have a Viet Nam effect, but will put the world on notice that the US can and will take casualties. It would leave US dominance enhanced.

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 12:25

I'm worried about the utter lack of history of the mightiest country in the world, who only knew one major conflict on its territory, and who doesn't understand war is a tool to be used wisely.
I'm more worried by the ability of the US to declare war once a year than by its hegemony, even if both come together.
Also, as I said, I am pissed by the whole "land of the brave" speech. Maybe because I'm pissed seeing more pacifist nations being called "surrendering monkeys" or "whiners" here. I'm sure many Americans here won't use this terminology anymore if they lose a brother or a son during a war.

Az · January 31, 2003, 12:27

Andreas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Felch · January 31, 2003, 12:39

We don't lose brothers or sons because we kick so much ass. The Romans, our geopolitical forebears, went to war all the time to maintain the Pax Romana, against smaller and less well trained armies. They did very well in those engagements. America is the same way.

It's not our fault we're so badass. We're just really good at making the finest tools of war, giving them to our best people, and using them in a way to have the biggest impact. And frankly, it isn't our fault that small countries piss us off. Iraq is obligated by a SC resolution to prove the weapons of mass destruction are accounted for. They haven't done that. Unless you want the UN to be as meaningless as the League of Nations, you'll have to put up with the US destroying the enemies of peace and order in the world.

Edit: clarification

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 12:41

FelchX : I guess your post was sarcastic ?

mactbone · January 31, 2003, 12:47

Spiffor: Three or four, depending - Revolutionary War, War of 1812, Civil War, and maybe Texas v Mexico.

Felch · January 31, 2003, 12:50

Not sarcastic at all. We really do kick ass. There's no denying that. And we are the Romans of the modern era. Right down to our former love of slavery, love of using force, corrupt Senate, and predisposition towards having a crappy second-hand culture.

It's our job to kick ass, so that all of you in Europe can feel superior.

DinoDoc · January 31, 2003, 12:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
who only knew one major conflict on its territory,

I count at least major conflicts on US territory.

Az · January 31, 2003, 12:54

so, who are the barbarians who are about to kick your ass?

Felch · January 31, 2003, 12:58

There aren't any barbarians about to kick our asses, not anytime soon anyway. People always concentrate on the decline of Rome. America is still at the height of its power, we're like the Rome of the second century.

Spiffor · January 31, 2003, 13:02

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I count at least major conflicts on US territory.

What was the body count of the revolutionary war ?

Sinapus · January 31, 2003, 13:05

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

I count at least major conflicts on US territory.

How many?

(Oh yeah, those Europeans know how to fight wars properly and wisely. Which is why they end up razing parts of their territory every half-century or so.)

Oops, was that out loud?

lord of the mark · January 31, 2003, 13:05

Originally posted by Spiffor
>>>I'm worried about the utter lack of history of the mightiest country in the world, who only knew one major conflict on its territory,

I presume you mean the American Civil war .the amer rev and the war of 1812 were also quite major enoug for me, but ill let that go. In any case the american civil war was a a very terrible conflict, and is seared into the american historical consciousness. We also suffered in wars that took place not on our own soil.

>>> and who doesn't understand war is a tool to be used wisely.
I'm more worried by the ability of the US to declare war once a year than by its hegemony, even if both come together.

Since 1991
the US went into somalia as part of a UN operation, at teh urging of the UN.
The US fought in Kosovo, as part of a multilateral NATO operation, which Blair pushed as much as more than the US govt, after having been very reluctant to get involved in the Balkan conflict.
We went into Afganistan after an attack ON OUR SOIL that killed 3000, could easily have killed more. One which we entered with the approval of the entire world.
The implication that the US goes to war at the drop of a hat is false. Invading Iraq may or may not be justified, but the idea you imply is wrong, and to hope for high US casualties to avoid it is vile.

>>>Also, as I said, I am pissed by the whole "land of the brave" speech.

You want Americans to die becuase you didnt like Bush's speech. Hmmmmm.

>> Maybe because I'm pissed seeing more pacifist nations being called "surrendering monkeys" or "whiners" here.

France, the nation to whom the term "surrender monkers" refers is not pacifist by any means. and you want americans to die becuase you dont like the terms used by some americans on apolyton and elsewhere - I dont like some terms used by some europeans, especially wrt Jews and Israel, but i dont want them to die as a result.

>I'm sure many Americans here won't use this terminology anymore if they lose a brother or a son during a war.

the term surrender monkey is an reference (fair or not) to french actions during WW2, a war in which many americans lost sons and brothers.

DinoDoc · January 31, 2003, 13:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
What was the body count of the revolutionary war ?

More than 1000 battle deaths.

DinoDoc · January 31, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Sinapus
How many?

3. Damn typos.