***Official Discussing the Merits of the Iraqi Conflict thread*** How many casualties are acceptable - on both sides?

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
i said screw reading all 7 pages, so im sorry if this has already been said

Is anyone else sorta afraid that when we get into baghdad that saddam will let the troops amass around the border of the city, and then when he feels like it, he will blow up a nuke, destorying the city, his people, and about 100,000 troops? I think that would be one of the most dangerous things with this war is what will saddam do when we get to baghdad

It would seem stupid to continue fighting unless you did have something to gain from it.. What you suggest is plausable it seems to me. What could they gain is the question. Fear of Saddam... nah - they could walk away, Fear of the US... nah - we'd welcome the surrender, better deal for the leaders if they hold out... maybe, a death toll large enough to sway the US to negotiate... nah cuz if we lost a lot of folks we'd level the place, the fear by the US that a large death toll could occur if they go into Bagdad... yeah.. I think that is it.. We'll see.
I don't think Saddam will loose his WMD if he has any... no one could support him then... unless it is his final act as a mad man... Hitler wanted to destroy lots of His country adn gave those orders to Spear at the end... then shot himself..

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
i said screw reading all 7 pages, so im sorry if this has already been said

Is anyone else sorta afraid that when we get into baghdad that saddam will let the troops amass around the border of the city, and then when he feels like it, he will blow up a nuke, destorying the city, his people, and about 100,000 troops? I think that would be one of the most dangerous things with this war is what will saddam do when we get to baghdad

Saddam has Biological and Chemical weapons, but it is very doubtful he has nuclear weapons. If he does have a nuclear weapon, it was purchased and he did not develop it.

 

[Ornery]

The sizable Islamic population of France is a valid point. However, I do not think that they are the overriding concern. Many Islamic countries do not support the US invasion of Iraq, but none are vehemently opposing - this may be due solely to fear of the US military. However, I don't think many of the Islamic countries are very happy with Saddam anyway. How does the size of the Islamic population in France compare to the size of the Islamic population in the US (in absolute numbers, not percentage)?

Only radical Islamics would resort to terrorism; most of them all ready hate the US so we are not really encouraging any additional terrorist attacks (they may spike temporarily due to the war, but the overall rate of attempted attacks should remain fairly constant). I guess there is a chance that the radical Islamics don't hate all developed nations and just the US, thereby allowing for a possible spike in terrosim within France if they were to support the war.

I'll be damned if I can remember who I heard that from. Might have been radio. When I heard it, it clicked. If I wanted to give France the benefit of a doubt, this would work. They couldn't publicly state this fear/excuse. They're real handy, location-wise, for terrorists. Perhaps they're playing both sides?

I don't know how dense that population is. That's just what was mentioned in the quick blurb I heard. Like I said, it's just one feasible way to put a little better face on good ole' France.

 

[dannybek]

In my opinion the Arab world is frustrated and angry at the United States and George Bush is because of two things. First: Unquestionable support for Israel. Second: The Foreign policy of the US government.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
i said screw reading all 7 pages, so im sorry if this has already been said

Is anyone else sorta afraid that when we get into baghdad that saddam will let the troops amass around the border of the city, and then when he feels like it, he will blow up a nuke, destorying the city, his people, and about 100,000 troops? I think that would be one of the most dangerous things with this war is what will saddam do when we get to baghdad

Saddam has Biological and Chemical weapons, but it is very doubtful he has nuclear weapons. If he does have a nuclear weapon, it was purchased and he did not develop it.

From what I have read Saddam would have had to have purchased the refined nuclear material. The plans and parts for a nuclear bomb he has had for some time.

 

[Ornery]

Originally posted by: dannybek
In my opinion the Arab world is frustrated and angry at the United States and George Bush is because of two things. First: Unquestionable support for Israel. Second: The Foreign policy of the US government.

Pitty. I don't feel we should change our policies on terrorists.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: nourdmrolNMT1
i said screw reading all 7 pages, so im sorry if this has already been said

Is anyone else sorta afraid that when we get into baghdad that saddam will let the troops amass around the border of the city, and then when he feels like it, he will blow up a nuke, destorying the city, his people, and about 100,000 troops? I think that would be one of the most dangerous things with this war is what will saddam do when we get to baghdad

Saddam has Biological and Chemical weapons, but it is very doubtful he has nuclear weapons. If he does have a nuclear weapon, it was purchased and he did not develop it.

From what I have read Saddam would have had to have purchased the refined nuclear material. The plans and parts for a nuclear bomb he has had for some time.

Yep. So lets hope he never purchased the material.

 

[Turin39789]

i too only read the first page, so pardon if this has been said already. I feel like we are definetly opening pandora's box with this one. We are increasing the possibility of terrorist attack on us, we are hurting our position with isreal/palestine, which is something that should be delt with. There will likely be some bad fighting when we reach bagdad. The Turks and the Kurds are going to cause some serious trouble in the north. We are screwing the UN on this one. We are hurting our economy. We are hurting diplomacy and our world relations. When America became the only superpower left in the world, we did a hell of a lot in the way of foreign aid, we went to countries and helped them build themselves up. This, I believe, is one of the reasons we have not seen this kind of worldwide opposition before. We showed people that we werent going to use our power to be a threat to them. I don't believe you can force a democracy on a people, you cant even give it to them if they want it. It is something that must be done for themselves, or it wont last.

I think it is the wrong time for this war, if it had to happen. We should have let the UN work harder through diplomacy, Bush painted himself into a corner by pushing so hard for it. When the rest of the world didnt fall his war, he really didnt have much of a choice. He could have stepped back and let the others try, but that takes a lot of humility, especially on the stage that he is on, and there arent too many world leaders who i would consider humble, who would be willing to set aside their personal interests, their careers unless they are forced to.

Im going to sleep now, i have to be up in 5 hours

 

[DanJ]

Originally posted by: Millennium

Originally posted by: DanJ

Originally posted by: Millennium
It looks as if so far the doomsday predictions of the anti-war side have NOT happened. What are the thoughts from that side now? What is going to be the new rallying point?

What doomsday predictions are you talking about?

Please don't even try to act ignorant about the whole position. Up until this war started there was nothing but horrific predictions from the anti-war side. Massive loss of life, chemical weapons used, errant bombs killed thousands of civilians, etc.

*Vomits*

It was all a load of crap and NOW it seems as if some want to act like it wasn't said. Please.

See, this is what people say when they generalize.

You realize if they used chemical weapons they'd give justification for the war. Global opinion of the US would skyrocket and our coalition would grow exponentially in days. This is things both sides have said (pro and anti war).

Massive loss of life is something we have no idea about yet; face it. An air-rade and the desert of Iraq is not Baghdad; both sides (pro and anti) fear urban warfare when entering Baghdad. Again, you're assuming that the pro-war side didn't think this might be hard.

Errant bombs killing thousands: Who knows how many civilians will die in this. Have they released numbers yet on the campaign so far? We are in day 3 you know. Obviously people died last night, we have no idea how many.

As an anti-war proponent coming into this war I can assure you that most of these weren't my justifications for my position. Points you made were fears of both sides. A main fear of the military is the use of WMD against them. A major concern of the military is reducing civilian casualties, and probably the greatest fear of the military is urban warfare. These are issues on both sides genius.

Go throw up so more.

And Godspeed to our Military.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: arynn

Originally posted by: busmaster11
I can't decide if I'm for or against the war. On one hand, I'm fairly certain I'm a liberal (but not a peacenik by any means) and I am disgusted by Bush's policies and attitude of acting unilaterally on important issues. On the other, his reasons for going to war are fairly solid.

But if I was an Iraqi... I would most definitely want a change of regime... Hussein is president in name only - he's a dictator, and he and his sons rule with an iron fist. His being reelected with a 99% vote in the "polls" is the biggest sham ever...

And thats why I'm leaning towards the idea that we're doing the right thing - in the name of democracy.

I agree that we're doing the right thing. However, the government is selling it as such - "The Liberation of Iraq". While this is true, we are liberating Iraq, it is not the reason we are going to war. It that were the case, there would be a majority of the population against the war as opposed to for it. The government convinced the majority of the population (myself included) that it is in our best interest to disarm Iraq and get rid of Saddam (as disarmament can not be accomplished with him in power). Now, they are selling the war as the liberation of Iraq. This is probably to try and justify to others; I don't think it's going to work. The vast majority of people have all ready made up their mind regarding the war; only evidence found after the conclusion will serve to convince people that their position is right or wrong.

it's alot harder position to attack, how many people will state they are against removing a tyrannical genocidial madman who brutalizes those he is supposed to protect....

 

[Alistar7]

What was Saddams FIRST action when the gulf war was suspended giving him the chance to start proving his new ways? He SLAUGHTERED some more of his own people, using helicopters the UN so WISELY let him keep... Wonders why we would ever trust their judgement, it's not as if they haven't been shown to be slow to react before

Why was America criticized by the French for taking so long to participate in ww2? Yes we knew there was a dictator who was using methods of mass genocide, we have to come to realize our error and apologize, we should have acted sooner. We are trying to make up for this mistake right now but are rather confused by your hypocrisy...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
What was Saddams FIRST action when the gulf war was suspended giving him the chance to start proving his new ways? He SLAUGHTERED some more of his own people, using helicopters the UN so WISELY let him keep... Wonders why we would ever trust their judgement, it's not as if they haven't been shown to be slow to react before

Why was America criticized by the French for taking so long to participate in ww2? Yes we knew there was a dictator who was using methods of mass genocide, we have to come to realize our error and apologize, we should have acted sooner. We are trying to make up for this mistake right now but are rather confused by your hypocrisy...

Hmm, the US Commander, Schwartkof(sp), chose not to intercept the helicopters. Lay blame at the right feet.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Alistar7
What was Saddams FIRST action when the gulf war was suspended giving him the chance to start proving his new ways? He SLAUGHTERED some more of his own people, using helicopters the UN so WISELY let him keep... Wonders why we would ever trust their judgement, it's not as if they haven't been shown to be slow to react before

Why was America criticized by the French for taking so long to participate in ww2? Yes we knew there was a dictator who was using methods of mass genocide, we have to come to realize our error and apologize, we should have acted sooner. We are trying to make up for this mistake right now but are rather confused by your hypocrisy...

Hmm, the US Commander, Schwartkof(sp), chose not to intercept the helicopters. Lay blame at the right feet.

Yes, we were following the UN resolution , we were pulling our troops out as agreed and without ANY FURTHER force unless attacked. First you cry when the US follows UN resolutions EXACTLY, then cry when they don't, at least you are consistent in one aspect of your perspective, anti-US.

 

[skyking]

I'm still waiting to hear an intelligent debate against this war...

It is an overly simplistic approach to a very complicated region and issues. The wheels are already coming off, with Turks sending troops into Kurdish territory in northern Iraq.
We supported Hussein in the 80's, when it suited our objectives. After all, he was fighting the "evil Iranians", who had overthrown our good buddy the Shah of Iran. That despot made Saddam look like a regular prince, when it came to oppressing and murdering his own people.
Right now, Saddam is the poorly fitted lid on one heck of a powderkeg. We are taking the lid off, and anyone can toss a match in there.
I don't think this administration has a clue just how badly this can go from here, and have no real contingency plams for when this blows up. Not if, when.

 

[Alistar7]

do mass surrenders sound as if this is blowing up? The cheers of Iraqi's for our marines coming to give them their freedom drown out ANYTHING those opposed have to say about this matter anymore. The only people whose opinion TRULY matters is that of the Iraq citizen, so far they and even apparenlty significant portions of their military agree with US INVADING THEM, so how can you possibly object?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Alistar7
What was Saddams FIRST action when the gulf war was suspended giving him the chance to start proving his new ways? He SLAUGHTERED some more of his own people, using helicopters the UN so WISELY let him keep... Wonders why we would ever trust their judgement, it's not as if they haven't been shown to be slow to react before

Why was America criticized by the French for taking so long to participate in ww2? Yes we knew there was a dictator who was using methods of mass genocide, we have to come to realize our error and apologize, we should have acted sooner. We are trying to make up for this mistake right now but are rather confused by your hypocrisy...

Hmm, the US Commander, Schwartkof(sp), chose not to intercept the helicopters. Lay blame at the right feet.

Yes, we were following the UN resolution , we were pulling our troops out as agreed and without ANY FURTHER force unless attacked. First you cry when the US follows UN resolutions EXACTLY, then cry when they don't, at least you are consistent in one aspect of your perspective, anti-US.

Not Anti-US, Pro-Truth. Helicopters are not banned weapons, so stick you Anti-UN banter up your ass!

 

[Alistar7]

Where did I say they were banned, did you somehow ????? confuse this statement..


He SLAUGHTERED some more of his own people, using helicopters the UN so WISELY let him keep...

Obvioulsy if they let him keep them, they were not banned, he asked to keep them, they said ok, the history of what he did is very well documented.

You say your "objective" observations are just "truth"....

When the gulf war was suspended the UN ordered an immediate cease fire, no use of force was authorized, and all coalition troops including US were told to disengage. This is when Saddam attacked the Kurds ONCE AGAIN, except using UN approved helicoptors, sounds way better to be UN approved, lol, instead of WMD. So the United States, along with every other member of our far more true coalition, once again, your opinion, did a thing. They all, including the US, followed that resolution to the letter, which as you have been trying to convince everyone is the most important thing, listening to the collective will of the UN and following it's resolutions EXACTLY. Yes the same type of resolutions as the 17 you didnt mind Saddam violating 333 times in 12 years.

Now you have the US taking action without a clear resolution, your contention, but they are doing now what you criticized them for NOT DOING in the past.

So in 1991 when they followed UN rulings you were against their action of compliance and feel they should have ignored the UN resolution and acted anyway? Don't answer, it's already part of your thread, you implied the BLAME should lay at those that did not act.

But today you claim they must act according to UN rulings, lol, funny how YOU think UN resolutions should only be honored when they FIT YOUR INTEREST? What is the basis of your arguement again....HYPOCRITE?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
What was Saddams FIRST action when the gulf war was suspended giving him the chance to start proving his new ways? He SLAUGHTERED some more of his own people, using helicopters the UN so WISELY let him keep... Wonders why we would ever trust their judgement, it's not as if they haven't been shown to be slow to react before

Sandorki:
Hmm, the US Commander, Schwartkof(sp), chose not to intercept the helicopters. Lay blame at the right feet.

nice of you to only blame the US for not going against the will of the UN when told to disengage and cease all fire, since every country followed that UN resoltuion and did nothing, how come your criticism isnt of ALL coalition members, such as CANADA, etc......

 

[Alistar7]

your pro-truth is nothing short of anti-us bullshit, you cant even frame an arguement and succesfully argue your position without making YOURSELF out to be a total hypocrite, quite impressive.

 

[sandorski]

You: "..that the UN wisely let them keep..." and "..UN approved..."

Anyway, you once again go on my ignore list for idiocy.

 

[Alistar7]

uhm yes, Saddam requested he be allowed to keep thm, the UN APPROVED, thats the only reason he had them.

Once again Sandorski attacks someone elses intelligence when his arguement has shown it cant hold water, stop dodging the hypocritical glare you cast on yourself with your poorly though out logic. It's all there, very easy to understand and see.

In one event you think the US should have violated a UN resoltuion and acted, but today you argue on behalf of the absolute need for UN approval.

If you can't even see the logical end of what pours out of your orifice, maybe you should can it altogether....

 

[Alistar7]

thats it run away AS USUAL, youre now my BIA*CH....

 

[Czar]

something I came across

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1325-2003Mar20.html

The Bush administration has frequently compared the level and scope of international support for its military operations in Iraq to the coalition that fought the first Persian Gulf War. But the statements are exaggerations, according to independent experts and a review of figures from both conflicts.

good read on the support in 1991 and now

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Czar
something I came across

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1325-2003Mar20.html

The Bush administration has frequently compared the level and scope of international support for its military operations in Iraq to the coalition that fought the first Persian Gulf War. But the statements are exaggerations, according to independent experts and a review of figures from both conflicts.

good read on the support in 1991 and now

Czar

I'm sure you have seen the video clip of the Iraqi beating with his shoe on the poster of Saddam. Why don't you go tell him that it was all a mistake and that the US forces will withdraw and turn the country back over to Saddam?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Czar
something I came across

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1325-2003Mar20.html

The Bush administration has frequently compared the level and scope of international support for its military operations in Iraq to the coalition that fought the first Persian Gulf War. But the statements are exaggerations, according to independent experts and a review of figures from both conflicts.

good read on the support in 1991 and now

Czar

I'm sure you have seen the video clip of the Iraqi beating with his shoe on the poster of Saddam. Why don't you go tell him that it was all a mistake and that the US forces will withdraw and turn the country back over to Saddam?

the relevenace is astounding:disgust: