How long till Iraq is at war? What happens during it, and after?

[Zylka]

BOOOO!!

[Asher]

In the perfect world, we all would live in Serbia.

[Cybergod]

Originally posted by Asher
In the perfect world, we all would live in Serbia.

Preciselly!

And as for Turkey and Israel being peaceful non-expasionist, you make me laugh my head off. People who say that are lousy hypocrites.

And how dare you incriminate the Iraqi people? You tend to take the concept of collective guilt too seriously. The people of Iraq have suffered enough - every day 167 Iraqi childre die due to American humanitarianism (DU shells etc.), poor health, no food, mall-treated water. That is equal to the number of people who lost their lives on 9/11, each month, repeated for years and years of agression. I am not saying that Saddam is noble but why should the people suffer?

And how commes that Pakistan has nukes and US isn't getting jumpy about it? And not to mention the fact that there is no evidence of Saddam's nuclear arsenal. Plus, who will you replace him with? You'll just put another dictator who will bow to your ill interests (hint: oil oil oil.

In Afganistan, US woved to replace the Taliban with a democratic regime but they've allied themselves with Northern Alliance warlords and Mujahedins, who couldn't care less about democracy or modern life. And you still see Afgan women forced to wear veils, and illegal drugs trade is still operational.

[TheStinger]

If you got rid of Saddam then the people wouldn't suffer anymore

[Serb]

Of course, they will be absolutely happy selling cheap oil to USA and cheer new, pro-American dictator.

[TheStinger]

They wouldn't be gassed, murdered and won't starve.

[Serb]

Of course, they will be bombed by US planes, murdered by US soldiers, died because of cancer caused by US shells with depleted uranium, died because of hunger and thirst when US planes will destroy Iraq irrigation systems, like they done during last war. Nice big difference

[Kramerman]

The people of Iraq have suffered enough - every day 167 Iraqi childre die due to American humanitarianism (DU shells etc.), poor health, no food, mall-treated water.

And the US is responsible for the crapy living conditions in Iraq how? Sanctions you say?
you are short sighted...
If Saddam cut back his spending on his military and weapons of mass destruction programs, and maybe just alittle on his exuberant "presidential palaces", etc, etc, and if he focused more on the welfare of his people, instead of on himself like a decent leader would, then maybe, JUST MAYBE, people could live healthy lives in Iraq. But instead of improving the infrastructure and welfare of his nation, he rather improve himself. DONT EVEN DARE blame Iraq's humanitarian problems on the US. The sanctions would be nonexistant in the first place if he would cooperate. And the only reason why he is obligated to cooperate in the first place is because of the consequences of his own dumb ass decisions in the past.

Kman

[Kramerman]

And how commes that Pakistan has nukes and US isn't getting jumpy about it? And not to mention the fact that there is no evidence of Saddam's nuclear arsenal. Plus, who will you replace him with? You'll just put another dictator who will bow to your ill interests (hint: oil oil oil.

No evidence?! oh my god...
And where do we get our news, Al Jazeera?
Have you ever once listened to the former UN weapons inspectors. Have you ever once heard the stories of those who have defected from Iraq?

We wont replace anyone, the UN will probably work to instill a new democracy. It has not been decided exactly what will happen, yet, but itl most certainly be included in the UN resolution. The US would never even hope to get the worlds support for a preempred invasion without an excellent plan for rebuilding. Why would the US want to put a dictator in power??? Our interests in the middle east would by far be best served by a moderate arab democracy. Oil is not an issue for the United States because we only get 8% of ours from that region and we are taking drastic steps to reduce that even lower, so would people stop saying that this is an alterior motive. During the Gulf War, yes, now it is not. As it is Iraq willingly trades all the oil we need from them because that is their major source of revenue. ME oil is an extreme issue for Europe and Japan, because they get upwards of 60 and 70% respectively from the ME. hmmm....

Kman

[Kramerman]

And you still see Afgan women forced to wear veils, and illegal drugs trade is still operational.

The illegal drug trade has been in full swing in the US for decades now, and we spend BILLIONS trying to stop it in our own backyard. How in the hell can we hope to accomplish this feat half way across the world in the rugged and isolated mountains of Afghanistan in a matter of months with the limited funds that we spend to fight it???

The reason why Afghan women wear veils (they are not made to by the government, most are either willing cause they feel it is their culture or they are made to do it by their relatives or locals) is because it is in their culture. Even if the Afghan democracy wants to make their women wear them, who is the US or anyone else in the world to say they cant do this? They are their own nation now.

Kman

[SlowwHand]

I vote October, only because Bush will give it that long for the U.N. to drop their cocks and grab their socks.
If he and Blair decide to go on without giving the U.N. time to straighten the bow in their hair, it may be in September.

[SKILORD]

Originally posted by Zylka
IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER VIETNAM

good lord. didn't we hear the same thing before Afghanistan too?

No it won't be, this is not some distant disconnected w3ar that the American people will not stand behind. Most Americans support pre-emptive action in Iraq and there will be few, if any protests, the likes of which brought us to our knees in Vietnam.

I am pretty sure that for the rest of our existance as a nation whenever we go to war it will be feared that 'ANOTHER VIETNAM' will be the outcome.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Serb
Of course, they will be bombed by US planes, murdered by US soldiers, died because of cancer caused by US shells with depleted uranium, died because of hunger and thirst when US planes will destroy Iraq irrigation systems, like they done during last war. Nice big difference

hmmm, lets try to blow things out of proportion just a little more, ok?

United States Soldiers do not rape, pillage, plunder, or murder. There will be civilian deaths in the war, it would be ignorant to think not, but after the war they will no longer happen constantly, they will all but stop. as Cybergod has so graciously pointed out, under Saddam's regime a WTC amount of civilians die regularly under Saddams regime, and thats just from poor standards of living. Lets not mention the secret murders and firig squads, etc, etc. Im not saying post war Iraq is going to be heaven, but itll be a vast improvement. Think about it this way:
You are in a room with 50 people and everyday a person is taken out and killed. Would you rather continue the trend or would you, if you could, send 3 people out one day to die, but stop the killing?

As for depleted Uranium rounds, after every incident any of them are used a clean up crew is flown in to extract as much of the shells as possible. Honestly, this is more for the purpose that others may not get their hands on the depleted uranium for dirty bombs or whatever and so that the materials collected can be remanufactured into more shells, and not so much for humanitarian purposes. Regaurdless, anyone who has taken a high school chemistry class knows that the radioactivity of Uranium can only cause cancer to those through 'large' doses and long periods of exposure, unless one is genetically predisposed to cancer, which 1 in 3 humans are anyway. Anyway, anylong term deaths related to the limited use of dpleted uranium rounds is minimal.

Kman

EDIT: Lets not forget that Saddam, being the brave man that he is, has clustered his military installation in cities and other densly populated areas so he can use the civilians as human shields. You can blame the US for the enevitable civilian casualties, but IMHO, Saddam is ultimately the bastard responsible.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Kramerman
United States Soldiers do not rape, pillage, plunder, or murder.

We try to leave that to the Russian army.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by SKILORD


good lord. didn't we hear the same thing before Afghanistan too?

No it won't be, this is not some distant disconnected w3ar that the American people will not stand behind. Most Americans support pre-emptive action in Iraq and there will be few, if any protests, the likes of which brought us to our knees in Vietnam.

I am pretty sure that for the rest of our existance as a nation whenever we go to war it will be feared that 'ANOTHER VIETNAM' will be the outcome.

Tell me about it. Everyone said the first Gulf War 'was going to be another Vietnam'. and look how that turned out.... we killed more of our own people than Saddam did. Now I am not in anyway saying this invasion is gonna be anywhere nearly as successful as the first, Since Saddam is fighting for his survival itll probably be much worse, but you get the point.