Jump to content


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

Details in this thread

War in Iraq? Yay or Nay

Iraq

  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

Poll: War in Iraq? Yay or Nay (33 member(s) have cast votes)

War in Iraq? Yay or Nay

  1. I support war with Iraq. UN support is irrelevant. (20 votes [25.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.32%

  2. I support war with Iraq ONLY if UN support is gained. (14 votes [17.72%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.72%

  3. I do not support war with Iraq at all. (33 votes [41.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.77%

  4. I am undecided or I don't care. (12 votes [15.19%])

    Percentage of vote: 15.19%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,020 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 01:02 AM

[QUOTE]
CJ: The UN is an ineffectual reminder of the past and is all ready too far gone down the path of the League of Nations. Better to create a alliance of like minded democracies that can act rather than be plagued by the inadequacies and inaction of the UN. [/QUOTE]

I'm not sure it too far gone, but I agree it's in bad shape...
However, it should not be ignored, at least not before you set your alternative. The vacuum is dangerous.

[QUOTE]
CJ: Everyone out there all ready knows you can spit in the face of a UN resolution and they'll just talk on endlessly. [/QUOTE]

That's the problem. The US should set an example of the right kind, not the usual kind

[/QUOTE]
CJ: Once we're in Iraq and have some solid proof of their dirty dealing expect some mouths to close quickly [QUOTE]

No need. Plenty of those have been found after the first war.

Edited: What's wrong with my quotes ? :suspect:

Edited by Enmar, 20 February 2003 - 01:03 AM.

Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#62 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 01:10 AM

weird, the tags are fine. :unsure:

does anyone know if it's true that there is going to be a media blackout in the even of a shooting war?

because that has me very worried. Free press is the only nway to insure that no one plants anything to make Saddam Hussein look worse.

I have no doubt that honest examples will be found of his misdeeds, btw

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#63 Lover of Purple

Lover of Purple

    Mustang Man

  • Retired Board Owner
  • 11,213 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 01:22 AM

Godeskian, on Feb 19 2003, 02:12 PM, said:

does anyone know if it's true that there is going to be a media blackout in the even of a shooting war?

because that has me very worried. Free press is the only nway to insure that no one plants anything to make Saddam Hussein look worse.

I have no doubt that honest examples will be found of his misdeeds, btw
Wasn't this suggested because of possible news reports on operations as they happen and alerting the Iraq army?

#64 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,167 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 08:57 AM

The US is enforcing a UN resolution that the UN itself doesn't seem willing to enforce in 1441. Iraq has not complied with the resolution and until the last few months hadn't even had weapon inspectors in the country for 3 years.
On another issue, while I definitely understand the need to keep people informed through the media, I think the continous publishing of every report and plan about Iraq that the various media sources can get thier hands on will definitely ruin any kind of surprise value that the US might have had and cost lives should the propsed war occur. It's not like Saddam doesn't watch CNN and have access to as many cable channels and media outlets as he wants and here are those same outlets publishing those plans with nice full color maps and troop positions marked for all to see. It seems like the whole Washington area has just turned into a massive sive with all the leaks of late.
Also Godeskian, how could Saddam look any worse at this point? It's hard to bismerch his reputation further when the evidence of his deeds is already so abundant. What could they plant that would make him look any worse than his own actions, videotape of him blaspheming Islam?

Edited by tennyson, 20 February 2003 - 09:01 AM.


#65 Enmar

Enmar

    a Sabra

  • Islander
  • 2,020 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 11:01 AM

Lover of Purple, on Feb 20 2003, 12:24 AM, said:

Godeskian, on Feb 19 2003, 02:12 PM, said:

does anyone know if it's true that there is going to be a media blackout in the even of a shooting war?

because that has me very worried. Free press is the only nway to insure that no one plants anything to make Saddam Hussein look worse.

I have no doubt that honest examples will be found of his misdeeds, btw
Wasn't this suggested because of possible news reports on operations as they happen and alerting the Iraq army?
LOP , I’m afraid this is a lost war… the blackout will simply speak for itself, I see no point in it.

Tennyson I disagree on the media issue. It can, and probably is, used to mislead and unnerve enemies, it is a major part of this war. We should remember it when we are exposed to it
Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.

#66 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 11:07 AM

tennyson, on Feb 20 2003, 05:59 AM, said:

Also Godeskian, how could Saddam look any worse at this point? It's hard to bismerch his reputation further when the evidence of his deeds is already so abundant. What could they plant that would make him look any worse than his own actions, videotape of him blaspheming Islam?
i worry about planting of evidence.

I don't actually beleive this, but say, just say that Saddam doesn't have any WMD's, which would make Bush seem rather foolish for having fought a war to get rid of them (or so he says) without media, it's real easy to ship a crate of say, home grown anthrax into the country, and have a 'heroic GI' find it at an appropriate moment

the only thing that keeps people honest is a truly free media

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#67 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 11:44 AM

Here's a very powerful reason for why the US shouldn't go to war right now - it would cost too much. There's an interesting paper online that estimates the costs of a war against Iraq (and the subsequent nationbuilding required afterwards) as being somewhere between 100 billion and 1.9 trillion dollars, depending upon how many complications arise. The true figure will probably be somewhere in the middle of those two estimates, but can the US really afford something like this right now, when it has to pay for a 674 billion dollar tax cut, and the escalating costs of social security and medicare?

The Bush Administration should pay more attention to deficit reduction before it engages in another costly foreign adventure.

Edited by Kevin Street, 20 February 2003 - 11:55 AM.

Per aspera ad astra

#68 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 12:06 PM

I very much doubt the US can affor 1.9 Trillion dollars

christ that's such a large amount i can't even properly picture it and i'm a roleplayer.

The things that could be done for america with 1.9 Trillion  :o

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#69 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,167 posts

Posted 20 February 2003 - 12:29 PM

But didn't the weapons inspectors already find mustard gas about a month ago anyway?
By the way you did realize that that the trillion dollar figure includes both the most pessimistic estimates of military operations against Iraq, as well as the worst case estimates for its effect on the US economy and the cost of rebuilding and garrisoning Iraq for at least ten years as well as humanitarian aid delivered in that time. From the article,

shows a summary compilation of the different elements that we have been able to quantify. Recall that these costs include only the costs to the United States over the decade following the beginning of a war. The favorable case indicates that the economic costs over the 2003-2012 period are $99 billion dollars. [54] This outcome assumes that the military, diplomatic, and nation-building campaigns are successful.

The high case is a collage of potential unfavorable outcomes rather than a single scenario. It shows the array of costs that might be incurred if the war drags on, occupation is lengthy, nation building is costly, the war destroys a large part of Iraq's oil infrastructure, there is lingering military and political resistance in the Islamic world to US occupation, and there are major adverse psychological reactions to the conflict. The outer limit of costs would be around $1.9 trillion, most of which come outside of the direct military costs.

Be warned that this discussion vastly oversimplifies the analysis by constructing only two cases, whereas reality presents a dizzying array of outcomes. Returning to the metaphor of war as a giant roll of the dice, we might say that the US could end up paying the low costs of around $100 billion if the dice come up favorably. If some dice come up unfavorably, the costs would lie between the low and the high cases. However, if the US has a string of bad luck or misjudgments during or after the war, the outcome could reach the $1.9 trillion of the high case.

Even the high case is not the limit of fortune's frowns. This number excludes any costs to other countries and consequent further impact on the US, omits the most extreme outcomes (such as chemical or biological warfare), and excludes Perry's "worst" case in oil markets. Moreover, the quantified costs ignore any tangible or intangible fallout that comes from worldwide reaction (except that of a potential boycott by oil producers) against perceived American disregard for the lives and property of others.
so pretty much the article is saying the costs could lie anywhere in this region and are dependent on so many factors that at best we only have vague probabilities to guide us in making the estimates.

#70 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 21 February 2003 - 02:21 AM

Quote

Enmar: That's the problem. The US should set an example of the right kind, not the usual kind

The UN had its chance for over the past decade and in typical fashion it failed horribly.  If it sits still and does nothing as a resolutions are violated then it should be ignored.  Why should the UN only be a shackle to the actions of the free world when it holds no water for halting Saddam?

Quote

does anyone know if it's true that there is going to be a media blackout in the even of a shooting war?

I doubt we'll see anything on the verge of a media blackout.  There were restrictions on the press during the Gulf War too and the press whined.  Apparently they think it is their right to endanger the lives of American troops and abet the enemy by broadcasting their every step in real time to the world.  CNN is the best intelligence source Saddam has and the US military took advantage of that last time.  They fed the press all types of exaggeration and false tidbits that they blabbed to the world.  Then Saddam prepared for them and got blindsided by the real operation.  

Quote

Kevin Street: Here's a very powerful reason for why the US shouldn't go to war right now - it would cost too much. There's an interesting paper online that estimates the costs of a war against Iraq (and the subsequent nationbuilding required afterwards) as being somewhere between 100 billion and 1.9 trillion dollars, depending upon how many complications arise.

Smells like the bean counter method to economics.  People said the same thing about the Marshall Plan after World War II.  That it was too expensive and we weren't giving loans that would be repaid.  It turns out the economic payoffs from that effort make it one of the best investments of US capital ever.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 21 February 2003 - 02:22 AM.

"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

#71 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 22 February 2003 - 06:33 AM

UN tells Iraq to destroy missiles

It looks like the Iraqis have backed themselves into a corner and Blix has at last found a bit of a backbone.  As a interesting note the date for destruction of the missiles is the same as Blix’s next report to the UN.  Now let’s see if Saddam is stupid enough to think defying the resolution again will get him very far.
"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

#72 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 23 February 2003 - 09:22 PM

Godeskian, on Feb 19 2003, 05:12 PM, said:

does anyone know if it's true that there is going to be a media blackout in the even of a shooting war?

because that has me very worried. Free press is the only nway to insure that no one plants anything to make Saddam Hussein look worse.

I have no doubt that honest examples will be found of his misdeeds, btw
Actually, I've seen stories on CNN on how something like 600 reporters from around the world will be incorporated into the military units, similar to WWII.

They will not wear uniforms like they did in WWII, but they are being trained in emergency situations and of course they have to agree to certain things like not giving away secrets and not reporting troop movements that will get the soldiers killed.

As far as the blackout during Afgahnistan, I kind of agreed with it. Reporters are a slimy lot these days. In one instance when a reporter was there, some soldiers were hurt and the camera was  trying to get up close and film them. The soldiers had to stop them. That type of behavior is despicable. Would you want your family at home to see you laying there all bloody, etc, probably before they were even notified you were hurt. Would you want yourself on TV like that? It's like the reporters who try to film the gore during an accident. They used to know better and have some human decency, now the more scandalous they can make it or the more gross out factor it has, they figure the better the ratings. And they haven't shown they are very good about keeping their mouths shut when they should. I remember when FOX News was reporting at the beginning about special service movements that they had gotten a leak on. Someone called in to say they shouldn't be talking about that and telling the enemy where our guys were and the news guy made some lame comment that they figured the government was way ahead of them.  Just stupid.

EDITED to add: Just because the journalists have the right to say anything, doesn't mean the should. They are still suppose to use common sense and not doing absolutely anything in the persuit of ratings or fame. They are often as slimy as those they point fingers at.

Edited by StarDust, 23 February 2003 - 09:29 PM.


#73 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 23 February 2003 - 09:37 PM

Godeskian, on Feb 19 2003, 02:34 AM, said:

StarDust, on Feb 19 2003, 06:33 AM, said:

I think the only ones who seem to want to protect Saddam are France and Germany, and that I find disturbing.
I think they are afraid that they will be cut out of their oil contracts when the US takes over the iraqi oil fields which is a valid concern for them

it may seem spitefull to stop a UN resolution ove rthat, but i think both countries are well aware that the US has no intention whatsoever (or so says the US goverment) of keeping the current oil contracts going, so France and Germany would have to renegotiate with the US
I believe the US has stated it's up to what ever government is created what happens to the oil. We are not out to take over the fields and won't be making those decisions, except possibly temporarily and with local input. That's just a bunch of rhetoric out of thin air by people who can't think of anything else to say. There are tons of opposition and exile groups that will be part of the process, just as happened in Afgahnistan, which is moving along quite nicely, despite the bumps in the road.

Now as far as France and Germany go, how did they get oil contracts?  Isn't Iraq supposed to be embargoed. No one is suppose to be getting oil from them. I remember a big 'discussion' years ago about Jordan getting oil from Iraq, and it was decided it was tolerable for various local reasons I don't remember. But surely none of that applies to rich, powerfull, European nations.

So, what are they doing dealing with Iraq? I realize the motivation is probably cheap oil, it's not like Saddam has any power to negotiate oil prices.

#74 Telest

Telest
  • Just Washed Ashore
  • 9 posts

Posted 24 February 2003 - 01:33 AM

I will not go about quoting the things I'm replying to, but I thought I'd bring up a few points I picked out while reading the thread.

Firstly, what's the "new" justification for taking action against Iraq now after WTC when the pleas for human right issues have been ignored for so long? The issue simply boils down to public opinion I would say. Since WTC there's been much less opposition to war. The action is taken only now simply because it hasn't been possible before due to too heavy opposition. You could say it provides a convenient excuse, but that's not quite to the point. It gets the people to accept the war, it gets other countries to accept the war, but it DOES NOT diminish the meaning of human right issues. It is simply only now that public opinion allows for action. Of course, this an oversimplification of the matter.

Then on the issue of Versaille's Treaty and WWII. This is probably one of the most debated questions in history, and we could read this debate anywhere, throw around the same arguments and still each have our own different stance. However, I think that a few things can be said with certainty: the treaty had two failures: it hurt germany without really hurting their industrial strength. Either the treaty should have been a lot lighter or harsh enough to try prevent the Germans from rising again. Either option probably would have worked.

Then, what got the Nazi party to power? On this too, you could bring out many theories and points of view. But the European 20th century dictatorships did rose from different foundations. Veimar Republic had what was called the most democratic constitution ever, yet the Nazis were able to assume power in Germany. In russia, the disaster of the war resulted in the Tsar being overthrown and eventually, after a bloody civil war, the Bolsheviks establishing a totalitarian state. But in both countries, there was many bad choises (Germany had both the communists and nazis for example). Russia had the Reds and the Whites, they had the Tsar, they had many communist leaders none of whom in the end had a spectacularly shining record.

Well, this is just to point out that most of the time when you refer to the lessons of the history, you might show where a mistake was made in not preventing one evil. What you often fail to see is that the suggested solution might very well have caused another kinds of trouble. When you say that history repeats itself, this is usually not in the small details, but in the big picture. ("One more dictator got into power, hasn't history taught us anything?")

[/ENDRAMBLE]



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Iraq

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users