Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The War That's Here

Iraq War Bush

  • Please log in to reply
164 replies to this topic

#161 Neptunian

Neptunian
  • Islander
  • 1,856 posts

Posted 22 March 2003 - 12:19 AM

Um... doesn't matter if it's urban or not.  When you're being bombed, you're supposed to turn all the lights off. Especially when it's an attack coming from the air.

#162 ultraviolet

ultraviolet

    photographer, aspiring sci-fi writer, photoshop artist

  • Islander
  • 3,622 posts

Posted 22 March 2003 - 12:23 AM

Well, CNN got kicked out of Baghdad.   Iraq says the images from CNN are a fabrication (makes one think of 1984- Iraq is trying to be Big Brother by telling people what is true).

#163 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 22 March 2003 - 12:36 AM

A quick pop in comment and I’ll comment more later here.  

Quote

Neptunian: Um... doesn't matter if it's urban or not. When you're being bombed, you're supposed to turn all the lights off. Especially when it's an attack coming from the air.

I would suspect they figure the payoff of doing so would be minimal. US forces can fight just as well in the dark as we can in lit areas and indeed prefers to fight at night. A GPS guided weapons system doesn’t get lost in the dark.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#164 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 22 March 2003 - 04:12 AM

Quote

Kevin Street: But Saddam Hussein doesn't have the industrial base the Germans did, and he's crippled by UN sanctions that restrict him from importing the components he needs to really rebuild his military.

The French and countless other have tried to have those sanctions removed countless times.  They double deal and make illegal transactions with Saddam to rearm him.  

Quote

Kevin Street: Couldn't they just finish their work?

Their job was completed before they started.  The mission of the weapons inspectors was to verify that Saddam had disarmed.  They were not supposed to be playing hide and seek on a country wide level with someone who had no intention of disarming.  Saddam should have under the UN resolutions been dropping off the weapons outside their compound for disposal.  Inspections do not work to disarm someone who has no intention to disarm; just look at some of the games the Soviets played back during the Cold War with treaties and weapons.  

Quote

Kevin Street: I can't help but think that a pre-emptive defense policy would lead to many more wars, and bloodier ones.

I can’t help but see a world full of nuclear armed rogue nations and then terrorists acquiring those weapons.  Maybe for many the reality of such a world wouldn’t sink in until London. Moscow, Paris, or New York was destroyed in a nuclear attack.  

Quote

Kevin Street: For instance, how can the arguments Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq not be used to justify a similar invasion of North Korea?

North Korea is all ready an established nuclear power; everyone realizes that a war to disarm them is too bloody.  So we’re reduced to reacting to the whims of a madman with nuclear weapons.  

Quote

Kevin Street: Barring some kind of accident, or a foolish move on their part. But those dangers are always present.)

Those risks are a lot lower when you’re not dealing with hostile states armed with nuclear weapons.  

As for the stability of China I personally have my doubts about how that situation will turn out.  I five them a fair chance of becoming in time a democratic member of the world but then I think there are just as many things that can end in disaster for that country.  I do doubt people living in Tibet, Vietnam, and Taiwan would have a different view of your overly optimistic view of China.  Then you have the whole issue of the Spratly islands.    

Quote

Kevin Street: I would submit that a process of engagement with Iraq after the Gulf War, coupled with sanctions on the purchase of military equipment (instead of the all-encompassing sanctions that crippled their economy), would have saved at least a million lives, and probably made the current war unnecessary.

I would submit that Saddam would now at least be well on his way to or all ready have his nuclear weapons with that course of action.  This is a man who still managed to threaten Kuwait with invasion even when having a crippled military.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#165 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 22 March 2003 - 06:53 AM

Kevin Street, on Mar 21 2003, 01:53 PM, said:

This is where we fundamentally disagree. I can't help but think that a pre-emptive defense policy would lead to many more wars, and bloodier ones. For instance, how can the arguments Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq not be used to justify a similar invasion of North Korea? No, I don't think the US should invade anyone. But applying this new doctrine in a consistent manner would be very difficult and dangerous, perhaps disastrous.

The alternative to pre-emption should be engagement, imo - bringing rogue countries and isolated nations more fully into our world community. The best model for this so far might be China. It's amazing to see how the isolated and dangerous country of the 1950s and 1960s has come into its own in the last couple of decades, engaging in trade with the whole world. Yes, China is still a dictatorship that does terrible things to its own citizens, and yes, they possess many WMDs, but the risk of war with China or an attack from that nation has decreased markedly since their emergence as an economic powerhouse. If the Chinese wanted to take Taiwan today (or achieve some other aggressive military goal), they'd have to seriously consider the damage such a move would do to their own economy before acting. And (so far, at least) it would appear that they have more to lose than gain from any war, so they stay peaceful, because it's in their own self-interest to do so. And this engagement process will only continue to enmesh them in world affairs, making war with China less and less likely. (Barring some kind of accident, or a foolish move on their part. But those dangers are always present.) And the emergence of China as an economic power has hugely enriched the world, giving an enormous boost to the economies of all the other countries.
I totally depends on the situation.

We had no choice with USSR or China, no one wanted a nuclear war, and I suppose the way things turned out supports the theory that all the major players being able to wipe out the planet prevented anyone from actually doing it.

The same goes with N.Korea. Some have stated "why aren't we more worried about N.K., they are more of a threat". But that is the point, we can't necessarily do much about them, it's already too late. On the other hand our war games this week while we deal with Saddam, and perform a major operation in Afgahnistan all make a point. N.Korea shouldn't get too confident. But there isn't much that can be done with the possiblity of starting a nuclear war.

However, we have an oportunity here to handle Saddam before it's too late to do so.

As far as engagement,, it can work with countries we have no other options with. Over time their culture is contaminated by ours, which is generally  more human friendly. China has a hybrid of a market economy and a communist government now, which has evolved because of western influence and economic needs. It was obvious they weren't able to support their people they way things were going, and there was the risk they'd end up collapsing like the Soviets. This has actually bought them more time, but it has also made the people less willing to tolerate controls of the past. It's only a matter of time.

But when you suggest this is always better, who are you worried about? Certainly it could be argued that non-military-engagement is safer for the US, Australians, and British. But what about all the people that die and suffer in the meantime? Is it better for them? It's been clear that the Iraqi's wanted help to anyone paying attention over the last decade. There were many unsuccessful attempts on their part to liberate themselves, and because we were going along with the absolutely riduculous UN, we couldn't help. It's definitely time that stopped. It's clear that they have suffered greatly, even their Olympic team is tortured and imprisioned for not doing well enough. People are raped and killed in the most horrific ways for the most ridiculous of reasons. The Marsh Arabs have been wiped out except for those that escaped to Iran. The marshes have been destroyed. It should be a wealthy nation, but most people suffer a very low standard of living, while there are hundreds of palaces for one family. Or should we only defend Europeans and their decendents?

And is it safer for the allies? I would say most people wouldn't agree after 9/11. To let this kind of situation fester only makes things worse, and yes makes more people hate us because we didn't help them. I have seen more interviews of Arabs that seem to be angry that they don't have democracies, and that is somehow our fault or failure, than there are about us being infidels or whatever. Arabs were blaming Isreal for the attacks on the WTC at the same time they were cheering Laden for taking credit for it. It's not like most of what they say makes any sense. And the seem incapable of differentiating one situation from another. It all comes back to their not having democracies and/or Isreal. The fact that the Palastinians keep cutting off their noses to spite their faces never seems to come into it. It ends up being damned if we do, damned if we don't, so we might as well go for it. It helps them and protects us in the long run.

Your theory also assumes that a madman isn't in control of the nation and wants to not get his people killed and wants a good economy, even if he/she disagrees with us on how to go about that and how important freedom is to the process. I believe it's been proven Saddam doesn't care about his people, only his power, his freedom to inflict violence, his sons' love of violence that he taught them, and his coffers.

Edited by StarDust, 22 March 2003 - 06:57 AM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq, War, Bush

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users