We should not attack Iraq

yourbuttocks, Palestine does not exist.

@Field:

Americans want a quick and easy solution to all problems. Just take take out Iraq and make more “parking space”. They don’t want to deal with the aftermath of our actions. Afghanistan is old news. It’s almost to the point where no one cares. Didn’t we win that months ago ??? That would be the standard response. Raise Iraqi cities to the ground. Then what. What about all the dead and destroyed lives, the dying and suffering, the refugees, the political vaccuums, etc., etc. Americans don’t want to think about these things. Turn off the TV and forget about it. This is the mentality here in New England. Again, I do not endorse such feelings. Not everyone believes in this manner, but it staggers me to see how many do.

First of all, our war wasn’t with Afganhistan, it was with Al-Qaeda, and it’ll follow them wherever they hide. Did we go in and bomb every house and kill every civilian? Of course not. So what makes you think we’re going to do it with Iraq? Where are you getting your information from Field Marshall…I question it’s reliability.

“Keep in mind that America has been influencing events in the middle east since well before 1990. America (read: CIA etc) has been mucking about in the middle east throughout the Iran-Iraq war, and well before then. If only it were so simple as “Iraq attacked Kuwait and then we attacked it back” - then America might have some morally high ground here. Attacking Iraq would be viewed by the international community as a high-handed bit of bullying intended to make George Bush Jr. look like he’s completing the work his father began.”

Again, the question was Iraq – not the Middle East. You made the statement that [America] “regularly beats the dog [Iraq],” I want to question that. Exactly what events (pending the Gulf War) has America regular “beat” Iraq with? If anything, US and British engineers have largely been responsible for building up the Middle East’s oil rich conglomerate that has made the wealthy Middle East nations what they are today. International community? Should we wait until Saddam starts directly arming Palestinian and Al-Qaeda Terrorist with NBC weapons before they finally do anything about it? Bush (Jr) is definitely doing something that should’ve been done a long time ago.

Moses - from Western Washington Fellowship of Reconcilliation -
Late 1940s - after WWII British power begins to wane and America steps in. George Kennan, U.S. State Department stated in 1948," The US has about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

1972-Iraq announces the nationalization of oil. Pres. Nixon plots with Shah to arm Iraqui Kurds. Iraq placed on list of nations supporting terrorism

1975-Iraq Vice-president Saddam Hussein and Shah reach agreement ceding control of Shatt-al-Arab waterway to Iran. Kurdish aid abruptly stopped. Concerning the Kurds who were left in the lurch, Henry Kissinger said , " Covert operations should not be confused with missionary work".

1979-Shah is overthrown. National Security adviser Brzezinski publicly encouraged Iraq to attack Iran to take back the Shatt-al-Arab waterway - which the U.S had forced Iraq to cede to Iran four years earlier.

1980-“Carter Doctrine” states U.S. will intervene militarily to protect U.S. access to oil. Iraq invades Iran at U.S. urging.

1982-Iraq removed from terrorist nation list

1984-U.S restores full diplomatic relations with Iraq. Pres. Reagan authorizes intelligence sharing with Iraq. At same time U.S. begins sharing intelligence and selling weapons to Iran.

1985-Oliver North tells Iran that U.S. will help Iran overthrow Saddam Hussein

1986-U.S increases aid to Iraq

1987-Norman Schwartzkopf Jr. Named head of CENT-COM. U.S bombs Iranian oil platforms.

1988-Cease fire signed between Iran and Iraq. Center for Strategic and International Studies begins 2 year study predicting outcome of war between U.S and Iraq. Saddam Hussein announces $40 billion plan to peacefully rebuild Iraq.

1989-War Plan 1002 originally conceived to counter Soviet threat is adjusted to name Iraq as main threat in region. Plan renamed 1002-90.

January 1990 - CENT-COM stages computer games testing 1002-90. U.S. War College report states that “Baghdad should not be expected to deliberately provoke military confrontations with anyone. Its best interests now and in immediate future are served by peace”.

February 1990-Schwartzkopf tells congress of need to increase U.S. military presence in Gulf region

May 1990 - At Arab summit Saddam accuses Gulf states of waging economic war against Iraq. The Iraq economy has been devastated by the war. Iraq had borrowed billions to wage war against Iran. Price of oil was down because Gulf states were dumping oil on world market. Kuwait was slant drilling with American equipment into Iraqi oilfields. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia at behest of U.S. demanded immediate repayment of loans to Iraq.

July 1990 – Saddam accuses Kuwait of conspiring to destroy Iraq economy. Iraq troops mass on Iraq border

August 2, 1990 -Iraq invades Kuwait.

I mean this is the kind of BS that i was talking about. There is more . . . . And when i mention the interference in the middle east . . . well, you know that American activities in Iran, Israel, Egypt, Syria, etc. all affect Iraq. In the American civil war - British aid to the south must in some way have affected the north - nearly to a position of destabilizing the future of the country.
Also wrt Kuwait - although i believe that it was rude (maybe even monstrous) for Iraq to invade - they did have reasons for doing so (i.e. Kuwait was accused of stealing Iraqi oil). Now i’m not going to justify any of the evil things that the Iraqi regime has committed, however between British and then American interference in the middle east, they have done much to create this “monster”.
Also please try to be realistic. Nearly any military action in Iraq WILL result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent Iraqis. I have no doubt that FM is correct in his assessment.

@yourbuttocks:

THe U.S. is the most powerful country and therefore everyone’s favorite topic, including Fisternis and Falk.

@EmuGod:

… By not getting involved early, America suffers attacks such as Pearl Harbor and September 11. You’re right that America is not perfect, and that it’s horrible to have to crush any enemy regime and to kill people, but other choice is there? When they are coming to get you and you have to make a choice between you and them, you’re going to pick yourself because people have an inborn instinct of survival. Bush doesn’t want to horrible attacks during his presidency, so he’s opting to stop the problem of Iraq before it begins. I say let him do so.

Emugod is one of the reasons, why the US are such a hot topic.

[ironic]
I am happy, that there are some ppl in the US who can forecast the future, who just know which country will turn “evil” …. go Emu, could you please tell me what the weather will be like in about three weeks, and which horse will win next weekend?
After that minor distraction you can look for “villains” again. And of course, be as tight as possible in that definition… “villain”=“everyone who doesn’t bow to the US” …
[/ironic]

Deviant:Scripter - My point is clear. Do Americans care, beyond killing the terrorists, what happens to the Afghan people? Probably not. Do they care towns and villages are rebuilt? Do they care if the Afghan people affected by the fighting have proper medical attention and supplies (food / shelter)? Do Americans care if a stable, democratic government is established and maintained? No, they don’t. In Iraq, the situation will be worse. It won’t take much for Saddam to convince most Iraqi’s to resist an American invasion with their lives. If a foreign army marched into your home town, would you care why? This hypothetical army will preach a better government, economics, religion, way of life, etc. Were you happy before they arrived? Would you care why they were here? Kill the invaders, drive them out. It will be a patriotic Iraqi war to repell the invaders, bottom line. Quite obviously, the American administration will be looking for successor group/s. It would be a Vietnam scenario without them. There’s always someone looking to profit from the previous leader’s defiance from the world view. This is probably why we have not invaded already. Again, do Americans give a hoot what happens to the Iraqi’s - the statement “turn it into a parking lot” answers that question…

How dare you Field Marshal. What gives you the right to presume to know what I do and do not care about. How dare you sir

@Field:

Deviant:Scripter - My point is clear. Do Americans care, beyond killing the terrorists, what happens to the Afghan people? Probably not. Do they care towns and villages are rebuilt? Do they care if the Afghan people affected by the fighting have proper medical attention and supplies (food / shelter)? Do Americans care if a stable, democratic government is established and maintained? No, they don’t. In Iraq, the situation will be worse. It won’t take much for Saddam to convince most Iraqi’s to resist an American invasion with their lives. If a foreign army marched into your home town, would you care why? This hypothetical army will preach a better government, economics, religion, way of life, etc. Were you happy before they arrived? Would you care why they were here? Kill the invaders, drive them out. It will be a patriotic Iraqi war to repell the invaders, bottom line. Quite obviously, the American administration will be looking for successor group/s. It would be a Vietnam scenario without them. There’s always someone looking to profit from the previous leader’s defiance from the world view. This is probably why we have not invaded already. Again, do Americans give a hoot what happens to the Iraqi’s - the statement “turn it into a parking lot” answers that question…

Oh geez, where do I even start? First of all, yes, America does care immensely about the future of Afganhistan. We do want to see a stable democracy put into place before we leave. That’s why American troops are spending so much time (and our lives) protecting Hamid Karza so that he can establish some control of the warlords of the country.

Secondly, you’re completely wrong in your assumption that America doesn’t care about the health and food situation in Afganhistan.

_Financially, since October 2001, the US has provided Afganhistan with $420 million and the President has all ready pledged another $360 million.

Food wise, the US provides 80 percent of all food aid to UN World Food Program to Afganhistan. The US’s goal is to deliver 300,000 tons of food aid to Afganhistan thru the spring.

To protect people from the weather, the US is providing wool blankets and quilts; shelter kits, plastic sheeting and winterized tents. We’re also distributing mattresses, clothes, stoves, cooking sets, firewood, coal, lanterns and water containers.

Medicine and healthcare: We’ve provided medical kits and funds for health centers and mobile clinics. We’re sponsoring public heath education and programs on hygiene, obstetrics, maternal and childcare, and malnutrition. We’re employing trained personnel to conduct educational outreach on basic health and nutrition, especially to women. We’re helping expectant mothers, training local birth attendants and funding the distribution of vitamins and the immunization of young children.

Communications: Through the International Organization for Migration, we’re distributing over 30,000 radios that allow Afghans to hear special broadcast bulletins concerning food distribution, security, health care and other information relevant to displaced people.

Housing: We are beginning small-scale spot reconstruction like providing materials to rehabilitate damaged housing for returning displaced persons.

Roads and bridges: We’re providing funds to upgrade and rebuild roads, especially to markets, and repair and reconstruct bridges.

Wells and irrigation systems: We’re paying for the drilling of wells, the constructing and repairing of irrigation and water-supply systems, and the operation and maintenance of water pumping systems to provide people with potable water.

Agriculture rehabilitation and seeds: We’re providing training in agricultural techniques and animal husbandry. We producing large quantities of special varieties of seeds and distributing them to farmers to plant in winter to prevent serious food shortages next year.

Income generation: We’re funding “food for work” and “cash for work” programs that enable people to have their nutritional needs met, increase their family income, while helping to rebuild their country._

Marshal, do us all a favor and don’t make blatant statements based on your personal opinion. Iraq is going to be nothing like a Veitnam situation. Did you completely miss Desert Storm?

It will be worse than Vietnam in many respects. Maybe with fewer American casualties, but it will be uglier.
In vietnam people fought against an enemy who had invaded their land.
In Iraq people will fight against an enemy who invades their land, tramples their religion, starves their children, and plunders her country, raping their women.
Does it matter that this is true? Not really. What matters is that the Iraqi people (who now have a standing army larger than pre-Gulf War) will believe these things to be true.
FM is correct. True, America has been most generous to the Afghan people (after all - it is a great way to build a pseudo-alliance with the people who’s land you’re occupying), but an Iraq with strong central leadership will be much different than a dissolved Afghanistan with no central authority with less freedoms than even the Iraqis enjoy. Also consider that post Gulf war the Iraqis had a much higher infant mortality, lower birthweights, much lower literacy in addition to their standard of living. Certainly some blame Saddam for this, but who do you think he blames?
No, FM is right. Iraq will be a terrible bloodbath, unless the US manages to somehow introduce some finesse into its plans.

I don’t think it will be worse than Vietnam and i don’t think America will loose this time, the land is not as hostile and they will send (i wish !) professional soldier.

@F_alk:

@yourbuttocks:

THe U.S. is the most powerful country and therefore everyone’s favorite topic, including Fisternis and Falk.

@EmuGod:

… By not getting involved early, America suffers attacks such as Pearl Harbor and September 11. You’re right that America is not perfect, and that it’s horrible to have to crush any enemy regime and to kill people, but other choice is there? When they are coming to get you and you have to make a choice between you and them, you’re going to pick yourself because people have an inborn instinct of survival. Bush doesn’t want to horrible attacks during his presidency, so he’s opting to stop the problem of Iraq before it begins. I say let him do so.

Emugod is one of the reasons, why the US are such a hot topic.

[ironic]
I am happy, that there are some ppl in the US who can forecast the future, who just know which country will turn “evil” …. go Emu, could you please tell me what the weather will be like in about three weeks, and which horse will win next weekend?
After that minor distraction you can look for “villains” again. And of course, be as tight as possible in that definition… “villain”=“everyone who doesn’t bow to the US” …
[/ironic]

First of all, I’m not American and I’m not trying to “tell the future” as you put it F_alk. I’m simply stating a known fact that history repeats itself. Also, you have no right to talk to me about villians being everyone who doesnt bow to the US! You’re from Germany and if I recall correctly (which I do), it was your country that began mass murders of minorities in the 1930’s for anyone who didn’t have “pure blood”. The Germansconsidered anyone not like them as “villians” and wanted to make the world “Judenrhine”. Everyone hear this? The great and mighty Europe is accusing the United States of hating everyone that does not bow to it! Before you even begin your accusations, F_alk, look at what your country and your continent have done. You built huge empires and messed up alot of the world. Look at what happened Africa because of Europe! You made ethnic cleansings within your continent such as the Nazis did and Molosovich, and through out the centuries have supproted attacks on minorities, mainly Jews. Now you DARE to starft accusing the United States of things? first clean up the messes you made in the world, then talk. I’m not trying to offend you F_alk, but unfortunately I had to get that off my chest. I feel that the European Union considers itself to high and too “above” the rest of theworld at times. Everyone who didn’t bow to Europe was traitorous for centuries and you are now trying to put that on the United States. The United States has to worry aobut its safety first. It’s not trying to build an empire anymore, but rather to keep the peace in the region. Having a madman as the leader of a country with non-conventional weapons will end in disaster, because he certainly does not care about his poeple or abut the consequences of his actions. America will leave Iraq when Saddam is gone, and most likely will help the people there like they did in Afghanistan.

Deviant:Scripter - it is clear that the US “administration” is doing all that is noble to rebuild Afghanistan. Ask 10 US citizens if the over 750 million dollar price tag the President wants is OK with them. This is the point I’m making. Do US taxpayers like to nonchalantly hand over their hard earned money to foreign countries? Add on the cost of the military campaign. Double this amount for Iraq. Just in aid over 1.5 billion US taxpayer money to someone else! If you answer a quick “yes”, I’s say you don’t financially support yourself, let alone a family. This is what is important to the US people overall. Ask your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc., etc. If you don’t believe this your kidding yourself. Ask those same ten US citizens how many of them think that this money could be used better to help AMERICANS! Noble help to foreign countries is one thing; food on the table is quite more on their minds.

I’ll say again (like in my post before last) that this is not my personal opinion. This is merely an observation made talking to family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. here in New England. Ask people in your own part of America. I really don’t think you’ll find much variation. Do mothers, wifes, and children want their sons, husbands, and fathers in harm’s way again? I doubt it.

As for the Gulf War, we will not be liberating an invaded country this time. We will be the aggressor this time regardless of the motives behind it. If you think the Iraqi’s will just surrender their homes to us without a fight - your dreaming.

I remember Desert Storm quite well. I was in the US Navy at that time…

@Field:

Deviant:Scripter - it is clear that the US “administration” is doing all that is noble to rebuild Afghanistan. Ask 10 US citizens if the over 750 million dollar price tag the President wants is OK with them. This is the point I’m making. Do US taxpayers like to nonchalantly hand over their hard earned money to foreign countries? Add on the cost of the military campaign. Double this amount for Iraq. Just in aid over 1.5 billion US taxpayer money to someone else! If you answer a quick “yes”, I’s say you don’t financially support yourself, let alone a family. This is what is important to the US people overall. Ask your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc., etc. If you don’t believe this your kidding yourself. Ask those same ten US citizens how many of them think that this money could be used better to help AMERICANS! Noble help to foreign countries is one thing; food on the table is quite more on their minds.

I’ll say again (like in my post before last) that this is not my personal opinion. This is merely an observation made talking to family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. here in New England. Ask people in your own part of America. I really don’t think you’ll find much variation. Do mothers, wifes, and children want their sons, husbands, and fathers in harm’s way again? I doubt it.

As for the Gulf War, we will not be liberating an invaded country this time. We will be the aggressor this time regardless of the motives behind it. If you think the Iraqi’s will just surrender their homes to us without a fight - your dreaming.

I remember Desert Storm quite well. I was in the US Navy at that time…

Field Marshal - Your argument has no basis. The United States of America spends billions to finance humainitarian aid in countries all over the world. Do you think American’s want to give humanitarian aid to anyone? That’s really beyond the point. See, you are trying to seperate two things that are one in the same. You make the correlation between spending money and helping Americans. By spending money to finance a military campaign against a threatening nation IS helping Americans.

Yes, clearly we are going to be the aggressor in the campaign against Iraq. But you especially (being a military serviceman) should realize that our objectives ARE NOT to take over the Iraqi citizens’ homes. What the hell kind of sense does that make? Our attack is not against the civilians, IT IS AGAINST SADDAM.

@Deviant:Scripter:

@Field:

Deviant:Scripter - it is clear that the US “administration” is doing all that is noble to rebuild Afghanistan. Ask 10 US citizens if the over 750 million dollar price tag the President wants is OK with them. This is the point I’m making. Do US taxpayers like to nonchalantly hand over their hard earned money to foreign countries? Add on the cost of the military campaign. Double this amount for Iraq. Just in aid over 1.5 billion US taxpayer money to someone else! If you answer a quick “yes”, I’s say you don’t financially support yourself, let alone a family. This is what is important to the US people overall. Ask your family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc., etc. If you don’t believe this your kidding yourself. Ask those same ten US citizens how many of them think that this money could be used better to help AMERICANS! Noble help to foreign countries is one thing; food on the table is quite more on their minds.

I’ll say again (like in my post before last) that this is not my personal opinion. This is merely an observation made talking to family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, etc. here in New England. Ask people in your own part of America. I really don’t think you’ll find much variation. Do mothers, wifes, and children want their sons, husbands, and fathers in harm’s way again? I doubt it.

As for the Gulf War, we will not be liberating an invaded country this time. We will be the aggressor this time regardless of the motives behind it. If you think the Iraqi’s will just surrender their homes to us without a fight - your dreaming.

I remember Desert Storm quite well. I was in the US Navy at that time…

Field Marshal - Your argument has no basis. The United States of America spends billions to finance humainitarian aid in countries all over the world. Do you think American’s want to give humanitarian aid to anyone? That’s really beyond the point. See, you are trying to seperate two things that are one in the same. You make the correlation between spending money and helping Americans. By spending money to finance a military campaign against a threatening nation IS helping Americans.

Yes, clearly we are going to be the aggressor in the campaign against Iraq. But you especially (being a military serviceman) should realize that our objectives ARE NOT to take over the Iraqi citizens’ homes. What the hell kind of sense does that make? Our attack is not against the civilians, IT IS AGAINST SADDAM.

however that is not the way that Saddam’s people will view it.
Imagine the European nations rising up against President Bush - invading Washington D.C. (after taking out every military and pseudo-military base on the way, never mind the hospitals, churches, neighbourhoods, media and police/fire stations that fall to “collateral damage”). Naturally the Americans will stand by and watch this, even those who supported George Bush (never mind those who supported Al Gore) no?
Now elevate GB in the eyes of the nation to an “intelligent, fatherly figure who wants American’s best interests” and reduce the invaders to “those godless infidels who wish only to ruin America, kill her children, rape its land and resources”. You really think that America will understand that this is not really the case and that the only target is GB?

Moses - from Western Washington Fellowship of Reconcilliation -
Late 1940s - after WWII British power begins to wane and America steps in. George Kennan, U.S. State Department stated in 1948," The US has about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population. In this situation we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming, and our attention will have to be concentrated everywhere on our immediate national objectives. We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford the luxury of altruism and world benefaction. We should cease to talk about such vague and unreal objectives as human rights, the raising of living standards and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."

1972-Iraq announces the nationalization of oil. Pres. Nixon plots with Shah to arm Iraqui Kurds. Iraq placed on list of nations supporting terrorism

1975-Iraq Vice-president Saddam Hussein and Shah reach agreement ceding control of Shatt-al-Arab waterway to Iran. Kurdish aid abruptly stopped. Concerning the Kurds who were left in the lurch, Henry Kissinger said , " Covert operations should not be confused with missionary work".

1979-Shah is overthrown. National Security adviser Brzezinski publicly encouraged Iraq to attack Iran to take back the Shatt-al-Arab waterway - which the U.S had forced Iraq to cede to Iran four years earlier.

1980-“Carter Doctrine” states U.S. will intervene militarily to protect U.S. access to oil. Iraq invades Iran at U.S. urging.

1982-Iraq removed from terrorist nation list

1984-U.S restores full diplomatic relations with Iraq. Pres. Reagan authorizes intelligence sharing with Iraq. At same time U.S. begins sharing intelligence and selling weapons to Iran.

1985-Oliver North tells Iran that U.S. will help Iran overthrow Saddam Hussein

1986-U.S increases aid to Iraq

1987-Norman Schwartzkopf Jr. Named head of CENT-COM. U.S bombs Iranian oil platforms.

1988-Cease fire signed between Iran and Iraq. Center for Strategic and International Studies begins 2 year study predicting outcome of war between U.S and Iraq. Saddam Hussein announces $40 billion plan to peacefully rebuild Iraq.

1989-War Plan 1002 originally conceived to counter Soviet threat is adjusted to name Iraq as main threat in region. Plan renamed 1002-90.

January 1990 - CENT-COM stages computer games testing 1002-90. U.S. War College report states that “Baghdad should not be expected to deliberately provoke military confrontations with anyone. Its best interests now and in immediate future are served by peace”.

February 1990-Schwartzkopf tells congress of need to increase U.S. military presence in Gulf region

May 1990 - At Arab summit Saddam accuses Gulf states of waging economic war against Iraq. The Iraq economy has been devastated by the war. Iraq had borrowed billions to wage war against Iran. Price of oil was down because Gulf states were dumping oil on world market. Kuwait was slant drilling with American equipment into Iraqi oilfields. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia at behest of U.S. demanded immediate repayment of loans to Iraq.

July 1990 – Saddam accuses Kuwait of conspiring to destroy Iraq economy. Iraq troops mass on Iraq border

August 2, 1990 -Iraq invades Kuwait.

I mean this is the kind of BS that i was talking about. There is more . . . . And when i mention the interference in the middle east . . . well, you know that American activities in Iran, Israel, Egypt, Syria, etc. all affect Iraq. In the American civil war - British aid to the south must in some way have affected the north - nearly to a position of destabilizing the future of the country.
Also wrt Kuwait - although i believe that it was rude (maybe even monstrous) for Iraq to invade - they did have reasons for doing so (i.e. Kuwait was accused of stealing Iraqi oil). Now i’m not going to justify any of the evil things that the Iraqi regime has committed, however between British and then American interference in the middle east, they have done much to create this “monster”.
Also please try to be realistic. Nearly any military action in Iraq WILL result in the deaths of many thousands of innocent Iraqis. I have no doubt that FM is correct in his assessment.

Thank you cystic crypt, I will now take this time to dissect your post on how US regular “beats” Iraq like a dog.

Late 1940s: Pretty weak opening statement that really doesn’t add much to your argument on Iraq. I’m not even sure why it’s even here, except to show George Kennan’s wishes for US to remain dominant.
1972: “Plotting” is a very different action than carrying out a “beating.” So far this is not a direct act of US “beating” Iraq.
1975: Poor Kurds
1979: Again, encouragement is far different “beating.”
1980: Seems so far American has less than “beaten” Iraq at anything except with the incentive and encouragement to go to war.
1982: Right…
1984: Any involvement of troops by the US? Again, selling weapons and intelligence sharing (to both sides) constitutes neutrality.
1985: More “plotting” without definitive action yet?
1986-1989: Alls quiet on the American front…
1990: Iraq invades Kuwait – Big Dog “beating” up on Little Dog?

So far from what you’ve given me, I can draw no direct involvements of US “beating” Iraq (save indirect involvements as arming Kurds, war encouragement, and loan repayments. For the word “regularly,” these attempts seem sporadic at best. I know well about Kuwait’s alleged attempts at “slant-drilling,” but it is no reason to invade Iraq to invade – at least not yet without allowing compromise and mediation. Funny how you lower your deaths of Iraqi civilians from millions (your post 05 Aug 2002 05:52) to thousands (07 Aug 2002 05:49). Very interesting when comparing who’s being “realistic.” At any point, I did not revel what I think my estimates of civilian causalities will be given the Invasion of Iraq.

No, FM is right. Iraq will be a terrible bloodbath, unless the US manages to somehow introduce some finesse into its plans.

True. However, Pentagon experts are still working on the Iraqi Scenario to make it as efficient, quick, and streamlined (minimal deaths of Iraqi civilians as possible). What you see today that has been “leaked out” (very limited when judging the scope of things) might not be true tomorrow and so forth. From what I’ve seen on the plans, America planners do not want to turn Iraq into a house-to-house bloodbath anymore than it needs be.

I don’t think it will be worse than Vietnam and i don’t think America will loose this time, the land is not as hostile and they will send (i wish !) professional soldier.

Ha, that’s what you think. Leave it to the pacifist to end a war before its truly over.

Oh geez, where do I even start? First of all, yes, America does care immensely about the future of Afganhistan. We do want to see a stable democracy put into place before we leave. That’s why American troops are spending so much time (and our lives) protecting Hamid Karza so that he can establish some control of the warlords of the country.

I have to agree with the Specter here. Just because it isn’t the flavor of the month on the news, doesn’t mean America has stopped trying or doing anything. We are just as committed to improving the lives of Afghans and providing them with stable leadership as we are of trying to rid them of Al-Qaeda.

BTW: I will not be able to respond as much as possible since at the moment, my Internet Connection is not agreeing with me :evil: . I apologize for any delays in advance.

I understand what you’re saying Crypt, and I think there’s a word for that: propaganda.

@izcoder:

Yanni, so now we can only attack terrorists if they attack us first? What the hell kinda sense does that make?

Two reasons:
(1) Because they are no terrorists before they attack …. you cannot punish a crime not yet done.
(2) If you have punished a crime once, you don’t punish it twice.

If you fail on one of the two, then you are the criminal, the villain, the terrorist.

@TG:

So far from what you’ve given me, I can draw no direct involvements of US “beating” Iraq (save indirect involvements as arming Kurds, war encouragement, and loan repayments. For the word “regularly,” these attempts seem sporadic at best. I know well about Kuwait’s alleged attempts at “slant-drilling,” but it is no reason to invade Iraq to invade – at least not yet without allowing compromise and mediation. Funny how you lower your deaths of Iraqi civilians from millions (your post 05 Aug 2002 05:52) to thousands (07 Aug 2002 05:49). Very interesting when comparing who’s being “realistic.” At any point, I did not revel what I think my estimates of civilian causalities will be given the Invasion of Iraq.

I am thinking that you believe my use of the term “beat the dog” was inappropriate. It’s not like America regularly bombed Iraq prior to '90, however it’s actions were fairly arbitrary and “muddling”. Perhaps i should have used a more appropriate metaphor, however i can’t think of a better way than to demonstrate that perhaps America had a hand in creating this “monster” that is Iraq.

Deviant:Scripter: I understand what you’re saying Crypt, and I think there’s a word for that: propaganda

Well of course. America uses propaganda, Iraq uses propaganda both on their people, and ultimately on each other’s people. Controlling the morale of the people is all important here, and if Saddam has control, then Iraq will be ugly.
oh - and when i said it will be as ugly as Vietnam - i meant that not so much from American’s perspective - i think that her soldiers would be killed in many numbers, but the attack would be much better co-ordinated, and likely run by people who know what they’re doing. No no, i think that the slaughter of Iraqis will be greater.
And i agree with F_alk (yet again . . . this is troubling. . . ).

That is exactly the point. US citizens don’t see the long term advantages US administrations give the country when they give foreign nations aid. All they know is un-godly amounts of taxpayer money is leaving the US quick. You agreed with me. Americans also don’t mind paying to bomb the Hell out of “enemy” nations. Back to my original point, that’s where most citizens would see it end.

You can bet that besides the US Pentagon, Saddam has also planned long and hard for an invasion. He will make it very difficult for us NOT to hit civilians. Weapons and munitions hidden in schools, hospitals, and homes. I don’t see airstrikes on those. Do you think he has learned nothing from Desert Storm? Fighting will not be in the desert wastes. He’ll have his soldiers in the cities fighting house to house in and around civilians. The locals will hide and protect their soldiers. Saddam has had a long time to prepare.

Picture it. Your marine platoon coming up on Bagdad. Snipers from buildings. People everywhere. Due to this, no air or artillery support. Fighting house to house, street to street. Casualties rising. Your buddy is dead. Days go by mostly under fire. All of a sudden, you see a 13 year old kid stick a gun in your face…

A little dramatic I agree, but a very possible scenario. Do US citizen’s have the stomach for it?

Saddam will make us look as bad as he can. Without UN or Allied support it won’t take much. CC is right. The Iraqi people won’t care why we’re there. All they’ll see is US soldiers with weapons. They’ll put 2 and 2 together. Who are they going to trust, Saddam or the invaders - be realistic. This is the war Saddam will fight. His terf, his rules. We are at a serious disadvantage. The Pentagon had better come up with something good. This is why the Gulf War ended the way and when it did. We need some opposition group to gain support to take over after any invasion. Considering we haven’t attacked Iraq proper yet after all this time, shows we don’t have it…

however it’s actions were fairly arbitrary and "muddling

Fair enough, I’ll accept this.

however i can’t think of a better way than to demonstrate that perhaps America had a hand in creating this “monster” that is Iraq.

There is no doubt that America’s actions in the Middle East were not exactly “outward looking.” However, before we jump to any conclusions, there are other factors to consider like Arab Nationalism, the Cold War, and Israel.

but the attack would be much better co-ordinated, and likely run by people who know what they’re doing.

I discussed about this later. So far only broad plans have been leaked from the Pentagon. Don’t expect any significant details until at least Fall/Winter.

Two reasons:
(1) Because they are no terrorists before they attack …. you cannot punish a crime not yet done.
(2) If you have punished a crime once, you don’t punish it twice.

This is too much of a generalization, you know that.

Americans also don’t mind paying to bomb the Hell out of “enemy” nations.

Actually I do care. Bombs do not come cheap.

US citizens don’t see the long term advantages US administrations give the country when they give foreign nations aid.

Be happy then that US citizens don’t run our foreign policy and administration. Americans tend to lose interest too quickly and want to “change the channel,” though I am happy that those in the White House do not follow this pattern.

Considering we haven’t attacked Iraq proper yet after all this time, shows we don’t have it…

Two words: Clinton Administration