Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Primitive has made some very good points.

I feel the U.S.A has found itself between a rock and a hard place.

It gambled that it would get U.N. support and lost.

It gambled that it would get a number of nations on-board with it and lost.

To not go ahead would mean some loss of face. Some nations may revise their opinion that the U.S. is a paper tiger which couldn't be further from the truth.

Major expense was incurred to no avail if they do not go ahead.

They said they would go ahead with or without a U.N. resolution and now they have to make good on it. I don't think they really reckoned on going it alone, but as a coalition, albeit a small one.

Will the U.S. win the coming battle of Iraq? I feel confident they will.

Will they win handily? Probably.

But they have lost the war of world opinion and confidence.

Since they are committed, IMO their only hope of salvaging what is left of their good name is to win the battle in Iraq, reconstruct Iraq quickly and then get out.

To do it they may have to hand Iraq to the U.N. who will finish the reconstruction.

The fait accompli coupled with proving a lie to those who claim the USA wants Iraq oil will go a long way to restoring world opinion and confidence in the USA.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">So thousands of people will die to prevent a loss of face and because of the expense incurred? That doesn't seem like a real good reason for war.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not so fast, there are several scenarios in which the US lose this war.
a) Iraq takes the war to US territory through Al Qaeda.
b) Baghdadgrad
c) WMD attacks on US territory.
d) North Korea (China) secretly enters the war.
e) The Taliban launches a counter offensive, like the Tet offensive in Viet Nam when EVERYBODY thought that that war was practically over.
f) Iran enters the war.
g) Saddams nuke/bio/gas Tel Aviv and Israel retaliates with one of their 10 City-Busters.
h) Syria enters the war.
i) (reserved for unlooked for complications)

There are a zillion examples in history when a clear cut campaign went down the hill.

C

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Click on the link below to play an strategy game about a possible scenario for the "Gulf War II" http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Gulf War II

.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, it was more like giving the UN a chance to save face and enforce its own demands.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">They have a coalition, even if it is a small one. Something like 45 nations.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">To not go ahead would mean the US's word would be relegated to the same worth as the UN's word--worthless. It's meaningless to use the threat of force if you're not willing to make good on it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Major expense would have already been incurred if Saddam had gone ahead and done what was demanded months ago. Threatening force still costs a significant portion of what using force does. Still, having gotten to this point, not going in would be a huge misuse of our funds.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">This is the same world which gives out Nobel Peace Prizes for saying "Shape up or else we'll tell you to shape up again!"--it'd be nice if they liked us, but it's not really vital.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Or to uncover evidence of French and German complicity in Iraq's lack of cooperation and/or participation in oil/weapons transactions beyond what is allowed under sanctions.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Heaven forbid the UN gets its hands on Iraq. They've done such a great job in Bosnia, and Rwanda, and everywhere else they've gone. To top it off, they'll drag out the process indefinitely. Who's going to provide the peacekeeping troops and the money for the next 20 years? The US. If we're going to fund this and protect this, we might as well be in charge of it.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sure, but again, their opinion is just an opinion. They'll hate us if we go in, and they'll laugh at us and hate us if we don't. The next time someone threatens them, they'll be more than happy for us to come help them out.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Not so fast, there are several scenarios in which the US lose this war.
a) Iraq takes the war to US territory through Al Qaeda.
b) Baghdadgrad
c) WMD attacks on US territory.
d) North Korea (China) secretly enters the war.
e) The Taliban launches a counter offensive, like the Tet offensive in Viet Nam when EVERYBODY thought that that war was practically over.
f) Iran enters the war.
g) Saddams nuke/bio/gas Tel Aviv and Israel retaliates with one of their 10 City-Busters.
h) Syria enters the war.
i) (reserved for unlooked for complications)

There are a zillion examples in history when a clear cut campaign went down the hill.

C</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I have to disagree -

a) Al Qaeda and Iraq are seperate, Al Qaeda may attack the US but that is seperate from the war with Iraq.

c) Iraq does not have the ability to attack the US with WMD. It's possible that terrorists in the employ of Iraq could use WMD.

d) or the EEE. It's about as likely.

e) The Taliban are in a seperate war.

f) Iran and Iraq hate each other. Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran during their war in the early '80s.

h) see d above.

Even if any of these things happened the US would not lose the war, it would just be prolonged.

i) that's the one to watch out for.

G

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

I wonder why all these lists of possible consequences of the war on Iraq have completely skipped over the most likely. Isn't it fairly obvious the Iraq will not be the only country in the Middle East to experience a change of regime? The people in Iraq's neighbor countries are just as much against the war as the European population, if not more so, and they have lots of other reasons for anger at the US. When the troops march there could be revolutions in our 'ally' countries like Jordan or Saudi Arabi. Not a very good outcome to have to occupy Iraq while trying to rebuild it and simultaneously deal with the sudden cut off of all Saudi oil. Even Egypt is not safe from this possibility. Now that would be a serious mess if the most populous Arab country were to have a revolution and switch to Islamic radicalism. No more acces to the Suez canal and Israel would have serious security problems again.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">rotflmao

Btw, atrocities, you accuse BaronM of flaming you, but he was only continuing in the tone you set. Remember, earlier on you accused people protesting against the war (ie half this thread) of being "like crazed followers of Satan", and then go on to make all kinds of other rabid accusations. As someone who has protested here on the forums and out on the streets I could consider your comments 2 pages ago as flames.

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Point taken Dogscoff. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif However what I said was not directed at anyone personally here at the forum. Baron Munchausen comments were directed at me personally.

But hey, we all have opinions on this, and we are all passionate about our views. Sometimes in the heat of the moment fingers type faster than reason.

I would hope that nothing said here in this thread is ever taken to heart.

[ March 19, 2003, 16:38: Message edited by: Atrocities ]

Re: [OT] Another heated discussion about the Iraq siutation, war and politics.
 

Seems like I stirred up the pot which was my intention. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

But I stand by what I have written. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

So, more stuff to promote a conversation. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Sure the war may widen. But God, I hope not. Which is why I suggested the USA get out ASAP. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

And yes, the UN may not do well. But at least it becomes the UN problem. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

A coalition of 45 nations? Well, if you want to call it one. Canada's ships are doing picket duty there but will not invade Iraq. Other nations have made their position clear as well.

EDIT: I guess you can technically say even France is part of the coalition when they say they will become involved if Iraq uses weapons of mass destruction in the war.

[ March 19, 2003, 17:02: Message edited by: tbontob ]