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

[Fyron]

My rationale for supporting the war has never changed.

[rextorres]

What was the threat? If the Iraqis didn't use any WMD during the war when their lives were at stake then the threat argument is specious because if their ever was any intention to use them they would have used them during the war.

If it was about liberation where are the people clamoring to liberate other people from other dictators?

One of the huge irony of the war is that more people will have been killed by the war than would have been killed by any WMD that will likely be found.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by rextorres:
it does seem that most people who wanted this war - wanted this war "no matter what". Why else would their rational for supporting the war shift?

You got to see it from another point of view. War is a nice change in the daily routine, and as a side effect it gets rid of the old munitions. Also, professional soldiers need at least a war to make it to the big leagues, and then you need to rebuild all that have been destroyed during the war, plus new hardware to replace the damaged ones like planes and tanks. War is not longer as good a business as it used to be, but it can still make a couple bucks.

[Aloofi]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
from www.stratfor.com

1919 GMT - The only militants thus far to seize on the opportunity presented by the war in Iraq have been those in Afghanistan.

Hey man, keep bringing those reports about Afghanistan. It is very nice to see reports that don't exactly match with what the mass media is trying to tell us.

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:
Revisited opinion.

I stumbled into this passage

quote:

---

5- Civil war breaks out in Iraq between die hard Sunnis (Saddam's power base), Shia militias (that have been maintaining training camps in Iran) and Kurds. None of this would Last long. The invasion is largely to stomp on Saddam's Sunni backers and that will happen no matter what. The Turks will take care of any violent Kurds, something the Turks have been doing quite handily for over a thousand years. The Shia militias couldn't defeat the Republican Guard, and they certainly can't defeat the U.S. Army. Iraq still loses the war.

As if the invasion was versus an ethnical group (the Sunni), while the Kurds were just cannon fooder for the Turc. This part is especially avoiding the difficult part of US policie between their need of Kurds and their need of Turkey to access the Balkans.

---

In a sense, it was, since most of the Saddam regime's supporters were from the Sunnis (minorities in a Shiite/Kurdish nation), and most of Saddam's inner core came from one town, Tikrit. The whole Kurdish-Turkish question is probably one of the real sticky points for future resolution in this region - and you can bet Iran (who has its own minority problems) is watching how things unfold very closely.

As a whole, I was not impressed by that website, so I'll keep on with stratfor which seems much more serious in its work.

I assume you are still referring to StrategyPage.com. Two points - first, just because StrategyPage is free does not mean it's not serious. (I'm not unaware of Stratfor - I get their free e-newsletter). Second, StrategyPage (and its hardcopy predecessor works by James Dunnigan and Austin Bay, How to Make War and A Quick and Dirty Guide to War) have an impressive track record. Case in point - Baghdad. Stratfor envisioned three models of that battle, all three from WWII paradigms. StrategyPage pointed out that the US had learned a lot from Israeli experience in digging out militants from urban areas, and would likely try some new tricks. Lo and behold, Dunningan and Bay got it right - again.

You can keep StratFor - I'll stick with a proven winner.

[ April 10, 2003, 21:41: Message edited by: General Woundwort ]

[Fyron]

Rex, Saddam has already killed many many more of his own people (by several orders of magnitude) than the coalition forces have killed in this war. He would have continued the biological and chemical weapons experiments on his own people if we did nothing to intervene. Sure, some people die in war. But after the war, the mass-murders in Iraq will stop. A little pain and suffering in the present for much greater in the near future is always worth it.

How can you say more people have died in the war than would have been killed by WMD? That is a rather arrogant presumption. You can not know what level of WMD production Iraq has (with 0 level always a possibility) without actually going in there and rooting it out. If Iraq has a lot of WMD, it would very easily be capable of killing many more people than have died in this war.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
What was the threat? If the Iraqis didn't use any WMD during the war when their lives were at stake then the threat argument is specious because if their ever was any intention to use them they would have used them during the war.

If it was about liberation where are the people clamoring to liberate other people from other dictators?

One of the huge irony of the war is that more people will have been killed by the war than would have been killed by any WMD that will likely be found.

Another huge irony is that fewer people were killed in the war then have been killed by the regime.

The fact that WMD haven't been used yet in the conflict doesn't by itself prove the absence of the weapons. There are many possible explanations. All of which you will scoff at so I won't bother wasting electrons posting them.

He had them in the past and had shown a willingness to use them. He had not totally documented their destruction. We had evidence that he still had them and was trying to develop them further. And he had connections with terrorist organazations that would have happily used them on our shores. That's a threat.

I can understand why you might look at the evidence and say it was wrong. I can understand that you might believe out interpretation of the data was incorrect. I concede that you sincerely believe there was no legitimate threat. What I don't understand is why you insist that not only was there no threat, but that we must know there was no threat and therefore our reasons for war must be something else other than what we claim they are.

Geoschmo

[ April 10, 2003, 21:51: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[primitive]

Fyron, Geo

For the 19th time in this thread alone: BEEING AGAINST THE WAR DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE PRO SADDAM.
Everybody knew Saddam was the worlds biggest dickhead and nr. 1 badguy. Now that dubious title belong to GWB.

People in Iraq are probably better off now, but I don't think the killings and civil war in Iraq are over yet (I hope I am wrong).

You have removed 1 terrorist supporter, but you have pissed off the rest of the Islamic world and increased their support to terrorism.
You have taken out 1 supporter of WMD's, but proven once and for all the need for any nation not best buddy with USA to have strike back capabilities.
You have wingclipped the UN and alienated your friends in Europe.
You have created a negative image off USA and US companies/trademarks, which mean lower sales of US products. Maybe dragging US and the world into a new recession.

I truly believe that history will prove this war to be one of the biggest mistakes of modern times, but again: I hope I am wrong.

[geoschmo]

Primitive, for the 20th time, I never said you were pro sadam because you were agaisnt the war.

Geoschmo

[Master Belisarius]

[quote]Originally posted by geoschmo:

What I don't understand is why you insist that not only was there no threat, but that we must know there was no threat and therefore our reasons for war must be something else other than what we claim they are.

How many Gas or Anthrax is needed to kill a good number of people? How spread it into the US cities?
Everybody knew that Saddam had not balistic missiles, then, how?
These in my view, are basic questions that need to be answered to consider if Saddam was really a potential treat to USA or not.
Yes, with time, he could have purchased the technology (even purchase Nukes) but he had 12 years to do it and he was unable to.

But then, I want to know why Saddam's WMD was a more imminent threat that North Korea's active program. In fact, NK claims to have already Nukes and to have missiles that could reach every place in USA.

Honestly, think this war like most the wars, was about power.
And honestly again, don't think after this war USA will be a more safe place to live, because as proved the fuc$%&g attack against the WTC, a maniac doesn't need WMD to kill massive number of people.