The W
Views: 100007095
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.10.14 1833
The W - Current Events & Politics - Is this what you want? (Page 2)
This thread has 17 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next(2250 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (47 total)
ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter








Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 750 days
Last activity: 750 days
#21 Posted on

    Originally posted by Enojado Viento
      Originally posted by The Masked Hungarian
      Can anyone from the anti-war side of this debate tell me what we SHOULD do about Iraq?


    Surround the country and bottle them up for the duration. Total blockade, no exceptions. Explain that any plains sighed will be shot down without question, whatever is heded for the border will be blown up and keep up the pressure until Saddam's regime collapses under the blockade.

    Containment won the Cold War, and it can damn sure work on some Third Word country we don't *dare* invade lest we get caught in irreconcilable tribal warfare that even Bush Sr. knew better than to try to get the US mired in.



    (edited by Enojado Viento on 11.3.03 1938)



But, if we were to totally blocade the country, no food could get in. Iraq produces nowhere near enough food to support its population (hence the allowed oil-for-food sanctions currently). I do believe the "international community" would object to the forced starvation of millions of civilians. Just to point out that little "oops" in your argument.



Fashion Reporter Extraordinare

Do you know where your Chainmail, +1 vs. Cruiserweights is?

Enojado Viento
Potato korv








Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 722 days
Last activity: 49 days
#22 Posted on
    Originally posted by ScreamingHeadGuy

    But, if we were to totally blocade the country, no food could get in. Iraq produces nowhere near enough food to support its population (hence the allowed oil-for-food sanctions currently). I do believe the "international community" would object to the forced starvation of millions of civilians. Just to point out that little "oops" in your argument.



"That little "oops" in my argument." Oy. Allow me to illuminate you:

I considered that Iraqis might die if we blockade. But it's a hell of a lot better than invade and racking up a much higher body count. It's a hell of a bad choice but I'll gladly pick the one that costs the least amount of lives to both sides. Currently the US doesn't give too much of a damn what the international community thinks (whatever the shell game at the UN makes one beleive) and the sanctions are starving the people *anyway,* so MY pointing out the "oops" in *your* agrument is "People starving in Iraq? How would anyone know the difference?"

The sanctions have been in place for 12 years, at the UN's edict (which shows you how much the "international community" really cares) People are starving in Iraq and and disease is rampant. They will continue to do so if we do nothing. I doubt your average Iraqi national will notice much of a difference between that and a full-on blockade.

If we go to war an invade the country people will be starved, wracked with disease AND displaced, to say nothing of being killed and maimed by the war going on. So if we attack, the humanitarian toll is even worse. Plus, then America will be forced to occupy a country for an indefinite period of time surrounded by a hostile people who have no desire for any democratic experiment we may try to foist on them. Look at Iraq's history going back all the way to 1923--it's a country without a people. Technically there are no Iraquis, just Kurds, Shi'ites, and Sunnis (sp?). The only government able to keep the country together was a dictatorship, and even a dictator like Saddam's hold weakens the further you go from Baghdad.

Speaking frankly, it's too much trouble to invade it if you can watch it implode from the border. And it's a lot kinder, comparitively speaking, than the civilian cost to Iraq of a full-scale invasion, which I imagine will equal the death toll from 12 years of sanctions no time at all, unless you know something I don't and the US forces are armed with Nerf weaponry instead of depeleted uranium rounds.




(edited by Enojado Viento on 11.3.03 2113)



-LS

"Yeah, well, the movie lied."
Dahak
Frankfurter








Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 2027 days
Last activity: 1680 days
#23 Posted on
1. Would more Iraqi's would die in a full blockade without food and medicine coming in.
2. Would a full blockade even be possible?
3. There is no love betwween Iran and Iraq but would Iran agree to a blockade? Their 300 mile border would really kill it off if they didn't help.
4. And what about the countries that buy Iraqi oil. You know Germany, France, and Russia (hey aren't they the countries that oppose the war?) would they agree to a blockade. A full blockade would require more than 300,000 soldiers to be effective and be able to stop a concentrated Iragi attack.
5. Would more or less US and UK soldiers die?
6. And is starving to death better than getting shot?
My guesses are yes, maybe, unlikely, fuck no, unknown, and no.
In the first Gulf War the US killed somewhere between 3,000 and 35,000 Iraqi civilains. Those are the numbers that the US and Iraq gave to the UN. That does not count how many the US killed by screwing up food distrubitition and water treatment and things of that sort. Supposedly the US military is more precise now than then. Also I don't really think the US is going in there totally without a replacement in mind. Some Iraqi general is likely on the take and is picked to be the next dictator.
As far as the sanctions go how much worse off is Iraq from 92 to 02 than it was from 80 to 92? Since food and medicine isn't part of the sanctions how is it really the UN fault that Saddam doesn't give a shit about HIS citizens. Saddam has killed over 100,000 civilains to keep himself in power. Also how many have starved to death to pay for his 30 or more palaces with gold covered walls?



Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
Enojado Viento
Potato korv








Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 722 days
Last activity: 49 days
#24 Posted on
As I'm not sure Iran and Iraq have normalised relations since their war, my guess would be "they'd respect it so they could keep everyone's attention focused on Iraq while they build their nukes."

Germany and France could probably be bought off for their oil interests. Russia has plenty of oil but it's all tied up in private hands.

As for "starving to death over getting shot at," I'd imagine if you're going to be just as dead either way, it stops being important how and how fast. You just can't have any armed conflict in this day and age of total war without heavy civilian casualties. You can only limit the damage by doing the smart thing and not fighting, or to apply military pressure in nonviolent means. In nearly 60 years of US and Soviet hostility our sole shooting conflict came in 1919. Containment works, and it's the preferable solution most of the time.

As to the rest . .since the US has alreadys aid they'll drop 300,000 tons or something of bombs on Iraq in the first few hours and are already targeting power and water supplies they're not being precise. Smart bombs in the hands of dumb people bombing from too high an altitude doesn't equal "precision bombing" in my book.

As for some Iraqi general taking Sadam's place. .. isn't that what got us INTO this mess to begin with. Given our kingmaking ventures in Indonesia, Chile and Iraq, another strongman isn't an encouraging thought, but then we're kinda screwed. We can't split the country without Turkey immediately coming in and taking the north, as they've sworn to do.

And to the sanctions--it's BOTH Saddam and the UN's fault. Saddam didn't disarm and the sanctions have stayed in place. The UN did nothing to provide extensive civilian aid and distribute it straight to the people (choosing not to circumvent the Iraqi government's corruption) which could have helped get the Iraqi people on the UN/US side (after all, the only propaganda they hear on the subject is from him)

So a LOT of Iraqis are going to die, it's just a matter of numbers at this point. We've lost the propaganda war, and now we can starve Iraq until they rise up and knock down Hussein or invade and paint a big red target on every soldier's back. I'm all for a solution that I feel would cost the least amount of lives and make the terrorism problem the least hardest on us.

You asked for a sultion from the "no war" side and this is mine--bottle him up. Unless you mean to say we can't contain a starving Third World nation on rubber legs militarily when we kept the Soviets in check for 60 years until they collapsed?





-LS

"Yeah, well, the movie lied."
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1270 days
Last activity: 1067 days
#25 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    We got shafted though, and didn't make the cut to stay in the Park Plaza Hotel, staying instead in the less opulent Tremont Street Hotel.

The Park Plaza wasn't that impressive. Besides, the second year I was there the fire alarm went off a 2 o'clock Saturday morning. THAT was quite a sight...



There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism.
- Theodore Roosevelt, Ocotber 12, 1915
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 583 days
Last activity: 198 days
AIM:  
#26 Posted on
First to Enojado, I think "containing" the Soviets and blocking the spread of communism was totally diffrent than what you propose we do with Iraq. We did fight two wars to do that also.

Id like to point out that this invasion of Iraq if it happens will not be like any other invasion done by any armed force in history. We will not be invading towns and enslaving the people and looting and pillaging. Our main objective is to remove Saddam. To do that the US military is basically writing a whole new book on how to fight. Were dropping so many bombs in the first few hours to take away Saddams command and control capabilities and to convince any Iraqi soldiers that we are not worth fighting and they should give up. Other than in Baghdad, Tikrit (Saddams hometown i think) and the oil fields the Army and Marines might not meet any resistance if the psychological warfare aspects have worked.

The potential siege of Baghdad is potentially the messiest part of any war. And still at this point we dont know what will happen when our tanks arrive at the city. The Republican guard and the citizens may fight us to the last man or they may just turn over Saddam themselves. We just dont know. So will we kill a bunch of civilians? A few innocent deaths are unavoidable. But our plans have been tailored to cause as little strife to the Iraqi people as possible while still removing Saddam.
Enojado Viento
Potato korv








Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 722 days
Last activity: 49 days
#27 Posted on
    Originally posted by rockdotcom_2.0
    First to Enojado, I think "containing" the Soviets and blocking the spread of communism was totally diffrent than what you propose we do with Iraq.


Well yes. The Cold War was brinksmanhip, this is a straight seige of an entire country.

I'm not convinced the US HAS given as much thought to fighting in Iraq, the history of the country and its people, what we'll do afterwards, and how in the hell you can sell them on democracy in such a way as to where we don't create another Iran or have to divide the country and further destabilize the region.

I might be wrong, and the US might have some Total Big Plan to rebuild the country from the ground up as a functional democracy but it's a hard sell. The history's way up against it and there's no guarantee a newly democratic Iraq wouldn't be easy prey for another power in the Gulf.


(edited by Enojado Viento on 12.3.03 0750)



-LS

"Yeah, well, the movie lied."
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 562 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#28 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by Enojado Viento
    As to the rest . .since the US has alreadys aid they'll drop 300,000 tons or something of bombs on Iraq in the first few hours and are already targeting power and water supplies they're not being precise. Smart bombs in the hands of dumb people bombing from too high an altitude doesn't equal "precision bombing" in my book.




I am sorry did you just say that the people in our military are dumb and don't know how to do their jobs? Thatís a big statement about the worlds best equipped and best trained military in the world. Sure there has been some mistakes with these Smart bombs the biggest one was the bombing of a Chinese embassy (under the left's lord and savior administration) but their is no evidence at all that these bomb donít hit what they are targeted to hit almost all of the time.
Enojado Viento
Potato korv








Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 722 days
Last activity: 49 days
#29 Posted on

    Originally posted by calvinh0560

      Originally posted by Enojado Viento
      As to the rest . .since the US has alreadys aid they'll drop 300,000 tons or something of bombs on Iraq in the first few hours and are already targeting power and water supplies they're not being precise. Smart bombs in the hands of dumb people bombing from too high an altitude doesn't equal "precision bombing" in my book.




    I am sorry did you just say that the people in our military are dumb and don't know how to do their jobs? Thatís a big statement about the worlds best equipped and best trained military in the world.



No I think I can spread the blame around a bit--there's a real top-down failure on the part of the US military when it comes to bombing strategy. First of all, we bomb from too high an alittude purely for PR reasons--heaven forbid we poor peons realise miltary action carries a cost in lives.

A smart bomb can only do so much, especially when the bomber can't get an exact fix on the target because he's too high up. Don't take my word on this--plenty of ex-military officers, even some from the first Gulf War have gone on record as saying it's a bad policy.






-LS

"Yeah, well, the movie lied."
calvinh0560
Boudin rouge








Since: 3.1.02
From: People's Republic of Massachusetts

Since last post: 562 days
Last activity: 2 hours
#30 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by Enojado Viento
    No I think I can spread the blame around a bit--there's a real top-down failure on the part of the US military when it comes to bombing strategy. First of all, we bomb from too high an alittude purely for PR reasons--heaven forbid we poor peons realise miltary action carries a cost in lives.

    A smart bomb can only do so much, especially when the bomber can't get an exact fix on the target because he's too high up. Don't take my word on this--plenty of ex-military officers, even some from the first Gulf War have gone on record as saying it's a bad policy.




Where are you getting this? I would love to see some sites about that. I mean I have heard about some drawbacks with the laser guided missiles at higher alts dude to dust in the air blocking and reflecting the laser. The Gulf war over 10 years ago. The technology was very new back then. Only 10% of the total bombs drop back then were smart bombs. Now most people are predicting that 90% of all the bombs what will be drop are going to be smart bombs. Most of the high altitude will be GPS bombs which does not require the aircraft to stay "locked on" to the target for the bomb to hit.

Like I said above I would like to see some people complaining about todayís tech not being good at high altitudes it would be really informative.
Enojado Viento
Potato korv








Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 722 days
Last activity: 49 days
#31 Posted on
A good deal of my information I got from a documentary called "Hidden Wars of Desert Storm," which explained the difficulties with precision bombing at high altitiudes, the danger of using depleted uranium AP rounds. Norman Scwartzkopf's comments are most enlightening, even if the lion's share of the documentary focuses more on the humnitarian toll, which is seen naively through the rose coloured glasses of "Look what the US did to these people."

It's more useful to me as an example of how policy sabotages military operations. It also finally shed light for me on why we DIDN'T go to all the way to Baghdad.

The rest of the information is culled from a variety of articles in print and on the internet. I looked some of it up last August when the war push heated up.

The big problem with laser-guided and heatseeking weapons is that the higher you are the eaiser it is for the sensor to be diffused and a high sensor to be thrown off by temperature changes in the upper and lower atmospheres. Something as simple a a cool breeze 1000 ft above the target can throw it just enough to miss or hit the wrong target.

The technology is sound, but even in the 21st century it's down to weather sometimes.






-LS

"Yeah, well, the movie lied."
HrdCoreJoe
Potato korv








Since: 29.4.02
From: Jax, FL

Since last post: 1060 days
Last activity: 1059 days
AIM:  
#32 Posted on
With all this talk of blockades and what not, I keep waiting for the Star Wars theme to hit and The Trade Federation to come out and announce it's sinister plans to take over Iraq and/or Naboo.



Andy Richter does indeed control the universe.
krakken2000
Kishke








Since: 31.10.02
From: seattle

Since last post: 2002 days
Last activity: 1729 days
#33 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.36

    Originally posted by DMC
    I think they would have a frappichino, smoke weed and watch the war on CNN. ONLY on CNN.

    DMC



really? is this your perception of what all anti-war demonstrators are about? wow.



Flaming Box of Stuff, blah, blah, blah...
Dahak
Frankfurter








Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 2027 days
Last activity: 1680 days
#34 Posted on
So Enojada a few question you didn't answer last time.
1. Is a blockade possible.
2. How many soldiers would it require? You would need more than the 300,000 soldiers to surround all of Iraq's borders and keep a strategic reserve. Otherwise Iraq could easily just punch through the blockade with only a hundred soldiers per mile.
3. Would more US and UK soldiers die in a blockade?
4. How long would they be there?
That is the most important question. A 2 month war would probably kill about 50,000 civilains. A 5 year blockade would kill far more likely 10 to 20 times as many. Saddam will not cut down the food for his cronies or soldiers. But the Kurds and the other undiserables will be starved. Is that really better?
The US needs to have a plan. I agree that an Iraqi general to become the next dictator is a dumb idea but I suspect it is being planned. They probably aren't planning on a dictator but that is what is most likely to happen.
The US needs to keep civilain casualites as low as possible and they do definitely have a plan for that. Whether it will work is another thing.
Either the US should leave, invade, or all countries should reach a compromise. But a blockade would kill more and probably not be effective. Letting Iraq starve and kill off people isn't better than the US killing them ourselves. Especially since far more would die in a drawn out situation. What could the world threaten Saddam with if he started mass killing his civilains? Is another Cambodia situation a good idea?



Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
rockdotcom_2.0
Frankfurter








Since: 9.1.02
From: Virginia Beach Va

Since last post: 583 days
Last activity: 198 days
AIM:  
#35 Posted on

    Originally posted by Enojado Viento
    A good deal of my information I got from a documentary called "Hidden Wars of Desert Storm," which explained the difficulties with precision bombing at high altitiudes, the danger of using depleted uranium AP rounds. Norman Scwartzkopf's comments are most enlightening, even if the lion's share of the documentary focuses more on the humnitarian toll, which is seen naively through the rose coloured glasses of "Look what the US did to these people."

    It's more useful to me as an example of how policy sabotages military operations. It also finally shed light for me on why we DIDN'T go to all the way to Baghdad.

    The rest of the information is culled from a variety of articles in print and on the internet. I looked some of it up last August when the war push heated up.

    The big problem with laser-guided and heatseeking weapons is that the higher you are the eaiser it is for the sensor to be diffused and a high sensor to be thrown off by temperature changes in the upper and lower atmospheres. Something as simple a a cool breeze 1000 ft above the target can throw it just enough to miss or hit the wrong target.

    The technology is sound, but even in the 21st century it's down to weather sometimes.





To that I say that the technology has improved leaps and bounds since the Gulf War. The effects of weather and atmosphere conditions have been lessened considerably.


Gavintzu
Summer sausage








Since: 2.1.02
From: Calgary ... Alberta Canada

Since last post: 2868 days
Last activity: 2868 days
#36 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
rockdotcom sez:

    To that I say that the technology has improved leaps and bounds since the Gulf War. The effects of weather and atmosphere conditions have been lessened considerably.

If increased accuracy of bombs leads to reduced civilian casualties, we would have seen it in the Afghanistan air war. But that wasn't the case. Click Here (comw.org) for an interesting, non-biased report on the bombing campaigns.

"Despite the adulation of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) as a "finely-tuned" or "bulls-eye" war, the campaign failed to set a new standard for precision in one important respect: the rate of civilians killed per bomb dropped. In fact, this rate was far higher in the Afghanistan conflict -- perhaps four times higher -- than in the 1999 Balkans war. In absolute terms, too, the civilian death toll in Afghanistan surpassed that incurred by the 1999 NATO bombing campaign over Kosovo and Serbia; indeed, it may have been twice as high."

"... credible reports of bombing mishaps and accidental civilian casualties suggest a level of civilian fatalities in Afghanistan greater than that experienced in the 1999 Kosovo war. At least 500 civilians were killed in the Kosovo war by the NATO bombardment. In Afghanistan, it is very likely that the bombing campaign claimed 1000-1300 civilian lives."

It may be true that the weapons are more accurate than ever before ... but if they are pointed at civilian targets, ordinary men and women and children get blown to bits just the same.






If it's true a rich man leads a sad life
(that's what they say, from day to day),
Then what do all the poor do with their lives
On Judgement Day -- with nothing to say?

------------------------------------------------
Joe Strummer Lives!
Enojado Viento
Potato korv








Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 722 days
Last activity: 49 days
#37 Posted on

    Originally posted by Dahak
    So Enojada a few question you didn't answer last time.
    1. Is a blockade possible.
    2. How many soldiers would it require? You would need more than the 300,000 soldiers to surround all of Iraq's borders and keep a strategic reserve. Otherwise Iraq could easily just punch through the blockade with only a hundred soldiers per mile.
    3. Would more US and UK soldiers die in a blockade?
    4. How long would they be there?
    That is the most important question. A 2 month war would probably kill about 50,000 civilains. A 5 year blockade would kill far more likely 10 to 20 times as many. Saddam will not cut down the food for his cronies or soldiers. But the Kurds and the other undiserables will be starved. Is that really better?
    The US needs to have a plan. I agree that an Iraqi general to become the next dictator is a dumb idea but I suspect it is being planned. They probably aren't planning on a dictator but that is what is most likely to happen.
    The US needs to keep civilain casualites as low as possible and they do definitely have a plan for that. Whether it will work is another thing.
    Either the US should leave, invade, or all countries should reach a compromise. But a blockade would kill more and probably not be effective. Letting Iraq starve and kill off people isn't better than the US killing them ourselves. Especially since far more would die in a drawn out situation. What could the world threaten Saddam with if he started mass killing his civilains? Is another Cambodia situation a good idea?



OK, in order:

1. I think so and its preferable to the alternative, in my eyes.

2. The Pentagon forecasts that 200,000 soldiers will be required to occupy Iraq so I would put the numbers in the same ballpark. And Iraq doesn't have the soldiers neccesary to make a run at a reinforced blockade--their troop strength has decayed considerably since the Gulf War and they can't afford to take substantial forces away from Baghdad and lose control of the central part of the country.

3. Between the options of trying to take and hold territory inside Iraq and suffering gyerilla actions and acts of terrosirm in front and behind of any advance I'd have to say the loss of life would be drastically curtailed. This isn't Afghanistan--there's no organised resistance group we can co-ordinate with, and there's every indication that Iraq's regular army will fight to the last man.

4. Not being able to predict the future, I can't tell you that. It would take at least 6 months of pressure to force any substantial co-operation from the Iraqi government.

You have to collapse the government from without. Democracy or ANY regime change won't stick if we thrust it on the country, it'll mean more if it comes from them. Once the Saddam government has collapsed (barring what USUALLY happens, the world community looks the otehr way once he blinks a few times)it's essential for the UN to take an active role and nursemaid the country into a helthy democracy and protect it from other Arab powers who would sweep in and take control. Nation building takes time and it's gonna take more than the US--hell, why SHOULD we shoulder the burden of the UK's failed experiment?

As for the "two month war vs a sustained bockade question," the damage from the first Gulf War continues today. Soldiers on both sides are suffering health risks from inhaling cases from DU rounds that have poisoned the ground in Iraq, to say nothing of the problems of starvation (and for those who bring up the "Oil for Food" program, if it's so good why did a substantial portion of its membership quite immediately after implementation, citing it as "flawed by design?") and privation. That's a sad, sad state of affairs but it's the way things are. Total war is hardest on the civilian population who have no recourse. And the effects of even a one day war are going to echo through years and years, so there's no way to avoid further loss of life.

As for "another Cambodia," well, we might have that *anyway.* That's the main reason I object to a war. Too many variables, and not just for Iraq. It's gonna look really damn bad if Saddam launches a VX missile at Israel when his back's to the wall and gets unloaded on in response with nuclear warheads. I ask in you in return. Is a potential nuclear holocaust in Iraq a better idea?




-LS

"Yeah, well, the movie lied."
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2831 days
Last activity: 2674 days
AIM:  
#38 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
This blockade idea is a nice fantasy. Let me offer you a few questions.

1.) Do you think Saddam's neighbors will permit us to do this?

2.) Do you think you can blockade an entire country the size of California? Are we going to build a giant fence?

3.) What stops Saddam from launching VX at all of our blockading soldiers?

It would never work.



"... I don't believe in damn curses. Wake up the damn Bambino and have me face him. Maybe I'll drill him in the ass..."

Pedro Martinez
Dahak
Frankfurter








Since: 12.5.02
From: Junction City OR.

Since last post: 2027 days
Last activity: 1680 days
#39 Posted on
I guess I will just say I disagree. A blockade isn't likely to save Iraqi lives. I don't understand what really we could do in a full blockade to make life worse for the average Iraqi than the sanctions do now. Or more accurately what the UN could do other than try to starve out everyone in the country.
You want Iraq to take care of it's own problems. But would that save Iraqi lives? Iraq has a fairly large army of 200 to 300 thousand. They suck in a war but as far as kicking the crap out of some Kurdish peasant or some poor person in Baghdad who complains about Saddam's actions they are more than capable. So a lot of Iraqis would need to starve. You yourself said that life in Iraq sucks so it would need to suck more. More people starving, more people dying of lack of medicine, more people getting killed by Saddam's goons.
My point is that if 100,000 Iraqis are killed by US soldiers and 100,000 people die under Saddam's regime because of the UN with the US enforcing that policy the same amount of people die.
And I really doubt that it would be the same amount. Iraq has been a poor police state for 25 years why would the Iraqi people say,"Enough of Saddam" and overthrow him in a short time?
A far quicker way would be to force Saddam to look like a bitch on Iraqi TV. Show the UN destroying missiles on TV. Show Iraqi soldiers forced to leave "No fly zones". Basicly show the Iraqis that Saddam is not respected or feared around the world. Of course a Radio Free Iraq wouldn't be allowed by our truly wonderful Saudi allies.



Marge I am just trying to get into heaven not run for Jesus.
Enojado Viento
Potato korv








Since: 12.3.02
From: Your Grocer's Freezer, NC

Since last post: 722 days
Last activity: 49 days
#40 Posted on

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    This blockade idea is a nice fantasy. Let me offer you a few questions.

    1.) Do you think Saddam's neighbors will permit us to do this?

    2.) Do you think you can blockade an entire country the size of California? Are we going to build a giant fence?

    3.) What stops Saddam from launching VX at all of our blockading soldiers?

    It would never work.



If it's such a nice fantasy what's YOUR solution? The question was asked if someone who was aginst war had an alternative plan. I outlined mine, now I'm calling your bluff.

Now, in order.

1. You're saying a blockade would get us LESS cooperation than a full scale invasion and indefinite occupation. And you say a blockade is a fantasy?

2. Well, one doesn't usually build a fence for a blockade and leave it at that. The very name "Blockade" sorta implies more than chain-link.

3. What stops Saddam from launching VX at out troops is ground-based anti-missle batteries, but again, since you're apparently willing to ignore any detail that you find inconvenient, I eagerly await your solution to the whole Iraq problem and hope it involves lasers and force fields.

I will say that Dahak has the right idea of how to win the propaganda war. Had we be doing anything that sensible to this point we wouldn't have armed conflict as our last resort. I also agree with him about the Saudis being one of our biggest obstacles to TRUE stability in the Gulf instead of the powderkeg we're sitting on now.







-LS

"Yeah, well, the movie lied."
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 Next
Pages: Prev 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Democrat panned for remarks about Jews-Iraq.
Next thread: Using Kazaa makes you a terrorist!
Previous thread: Poll: Unnamed Democrat leads Bush
(2250 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
For those that think OUR country is divided... Yahoo! News - Many Germans Want Berlin Wall Back Say what you will about red states versus blue states, but things could always be worse.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Is this what you want? (Page 2)Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.145 seconds.